Patton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Patton v. State

535 S.W.3d 787

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 2017·No. ED 105567 & ED 105560·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Patton (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion. Movant contends his trial counsel was ineffective in: (I) failing to request a cautionary instruction concerning the testimony of an in-custody informant, and (II) failing to move for the admission of two newspaper articles that could have been used to impeach the in-custody informant’s testimony. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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.

Melvin Patton (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion. Movant contends his trial counsel was ineffective in: (I) failing to request a cautionary instruction concerning the testimony of an in-custody informant, and (II) failing to move for the admission of two newspaper articles that could have been used to impeach the in-custody informant’s testimony. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).

Patton v. State, 535 S.W.3d 787 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

535 S.W.3d 787 (Patton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.