Niblock v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Niblock v. State

406 S.W.3d 80, 2013 WL 4054597, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 937

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 13, 2013·No. No. WD 75079·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Philip Niblock appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion, after he was convicted of first-degree tampering. Ni-block contends the motion court clearly erred in denying post-conviction relief because his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call two potential alibi witnesses and failing to fully cross-examine the victim and impeach her testimony. For reasons explained in a Memorandum [81] provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the motion court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Philip Niblock appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion, after he was convicted of first-degree tampering. Ni-block contends the motion court clearly erred in denying post-conviction relief because his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to call two potential alibi witnesses and failing to fully cross-examine the victim and impeach her testimony. For reasons explained in a Memorandum [81] provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the motion court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

Niblock v. State, 406 S.W.3d 80, 2013 WL 4054597, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 937 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

406 S.W.3d 80 (Niblock v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.