Peal v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peal v. State

493 S.W.3d 36, 2016 WL 3538378

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 2016

DocketWD 78454

StatusPublished

This text of 493 S.W.3d 36 (Peal 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

Peal v. State, 493 S.W.3d 36, 2016 WL 3538378 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Darris Peal appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for 'post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Peal argues the ruling was clear error because he received ineffective assistance from his trial defense counsel when he “failed to properly object to and in fact elicited evidence that [Peal] was unemployed at the time of the homicide and that [he] had never held a job” and such failure prejudiced Peal' because “counsel’s actions directly contradicted counsel’s trial strategy, which was to seek to exclude evidence that [Peal] wanted money or was obsessed with money.” Because a published opinion [37]*37would have no precedential value, a memorandum has-been provided to-the parties.

The judgment denying Smith’s motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Darris Peal appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for 'post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Peal argues the ruling was clear error because he received ineffective assistance from his trial defense counsel when he “failed to properly object to and in fact elicited evidence that [Peal] was unemployed at the time of the homicide and that [he] had never held a job” and such failure prejudiced Peal' because “counsel’s actions directly contradicted counsel’s trial strategy, which was to seek to exclude evidence that [Peal] wanted money or was obsessed with money.” Because a published opinion [37]*37would have no precedential value, a memorandum has-been provided to-the parties.

The judgment denying Smith’s motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 S.W.3d 36, 2016 WL 3538378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peal-v-state-moctapp-2016.