Moss v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moss v. State

514 S.W.3d 645, 2017 WL 1149639, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 219

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104089

StatusPublished

This text of 514 S.W.3d 645 (Moss 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

Moss v. State, 514 S.W.3d 645, 2017 WL 1149639, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marty Moss (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court erred because his trial counsel unreasonably failed to submit a lesser-included offense instruction to the jury and this error prejudice the outcome of the case. We find the motion court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant’s trial counsel provided effective assistance of counsel. We thereby affirm the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marty Moss (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court erred because his trial counsel unreasonably failed to submit a lesser-included offense instruction to the jury and this error prejudice the outcome of the case. We find the motion court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant’s trial counsel provided effective assistance of counsel. We thereby affirm the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 S.W.3d 645, 2017 WL 1149639, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-state-moctapp-2017.