Newsome v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Newsome v. State

172 S.W.3d 493, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1397, 2005 WL 2341331

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 27, 2005

DocketED 85386

StatusPublished

This text of 172 S.W.3d 493 (Newsome 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

Newsome v. State, 172 S.W.3d 493, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1397, 2005 WL 2341331 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lufunso Newsome (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss or object to the indictment charging him with one count of kidnapping, because the indictment failed to include essential elements of the crime. Movant also claims counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the closing argument of the state. Finally, movant argues counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of kidnapping to support his conviction.

*494 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lufunso Newsome (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss or object to the indictment charging him with one count of kidnapping, because the indictment failed to include essential elements of the crime. Movant also claims counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the closing argument of the state. Finally, movant argues counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of kidnapping to support his conviction.

*494 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 S.W.3d 493, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1397, 2005 WL 2341331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newsome-v-state-moctapp-2005.