Norman v. State
This text of 254 S.W.3d 113 (Norman 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.
Opinion
Order
Jason Lee Norman appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief. Norman argues that the trial court clearly erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because his trial attorney did not act as a competent attorney by failing to cross-examine two witnesses on specific issues, by failing to object to another witness’s testimony and then calling a witness that should not have been called. The trial court did not clearly err in denying Norman’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
254 S.W.3d 113, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 394, 2008 WL 762295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-v-state-moctapp-2008.