Norman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Norman v. State

547 S.W.3d 159

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105643

StatusPublished

This text of 547 S.W.3d 159 (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.

Bluebook

Norman v. State, 547 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Terrance T. Norman ("Norman") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following a bifurcated jury trial, the trial court convicted Norman of first-degree robbery and sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. On appeal, Norman challenges the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to (1) hearsay testimony linking Norman to other crimes, (2) bad-acts testimony inferring that Norman was selling prescription pills, and (3) improper speculation as to Norman's future conduct made by the State during closing argument. Because trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to such testimony or argument, the motion court's findings were not clearly erroneous.

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

PER CURIAM

Terrance T. Norman ("Norman") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following a bifurcated jury trial, the trial court convicted Norman of first-degree robbery and sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. On appeal, Norman challenges the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to (1) hearsay testimony linking Norman to other crimes, (2) bad-acts testimony inferring that Norman was selling prescription pills, and (3) improper speculation as to Norman's future conduct made by the State during closing argument. Because trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to such testimony or argument, the motion court's findings were not clearly erroneous.

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)

547 S.W.3d 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-v-state-moctapp-2018.