Payne v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Payne v. State

216 S.W.3d 235, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 394, 2007 WL 656290

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

DocketNo. ED 88336

StatusPublished

This text of 216 S.W.3d 235 (Payne 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

Payne v. State, 216 S.W.3d 235, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 394, 2007 WL 656290 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Payne (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, in violation of section 565.020.1,² and armed criminal action, section 571.015.

Movant claims three points on appeal. First, he claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, locate and call to testify witnesses who would have corroborated his claim of self-defense. Second, Movant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that the State’s use of inconsistent factual theories in separate trials for co-defendants violated Movant’s right to due process. Third, Movant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, the claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s use of inconsistent theories.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Anthony Payne (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, in violation of section 565.020.1,² and armed criminal action, section 571.015.

Movant claims three points on appeal. First, he claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, locate and call to testify witnesses who would have corroborated his claim of self-defense. Second, Movant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that the State’s use of inconsistent factual theories in separate trials for co-defendants violated Movant’s right to due process. Third, Movant claims that the motion court clearly erred in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, the claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s use of inconsistent theories.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 S.W.3d 235, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 394, 2007 WL 656290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-state-moctapp-2007.