Moreland v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moreland v. State

572 S.W.3d 166

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 2019

DocketWD 81531

StatusPublished

This text of 572 S.W.3d 166 (Moreland 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

Moreland v. State, 572 S.W.3d 166 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Jeffrey Moreland appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Moreland raises four claims on appeal: (1) the motion court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on all claims raised in the amended motion; (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause to testimony from a medical examiner who did not perform the victim's autopsy; (3) the motion court erred in concluding that trial counsel's failure to present a firearms expert to counter the conclusions from the State's firearms expert was based upon trial strategy; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present evidence to support a defense of an alternate perpetrator. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per Curiam:

Jeffrey Moreland appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Moreland raises four claims on appeal: (1) the motion court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law on all claims raised in the amended motion; (2) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause to testimony from a medical examiner who did not perform the victim's autopsy; (3) the motion court erred in concluding that trial counsel's failure to present a firearms expert to counter the conclusions from the State's firearms expert was based upon trial strategy; and (4) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present evidence to support a defense of an alternate perpetrator. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 S.W.3d 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreland-v-state-moctapp-2019.