Moore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. State

478 S.W.3d 528, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1285, 2015 WL 8922776

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102347

StatusPublished

This text of 478 S.W.3d 528 (Moore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. State, 478 S.W.3d 528, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1285, 2015 WL 8922776 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

[529]*529 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Moore (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his two points on appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims without an evidentiary hearing as his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to question victim K.P. about her reluctance to testify at trial, and (2) failing to object to the admission of the victims’ clothing based on the lack of an adequate chain of custody.

The motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion is affirmed. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[529]*529 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Moore (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his two points on appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims without an evidentiary hearing as his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to question victim K.P. about her reluctance to testify at trial, and (2) failing to object to the admission of the victims’ clothing based on the lack of an adequate chain of custody.

The motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion is affirmed. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 S.W.3d 528, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1285, 2015 WL 8922776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-moctapp-2015.