Perdomo-Paz v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Perdomo-Paz v. State

571 S.W.3d 699

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 2019

DocketWD 81257

StatusPublished

This text of 571 S.W.3d 699 (Perdomo-Paz 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

Perdomo-Paz v. State, 571 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Isaac Perdomo-Paz was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree, one count of murder in the second degree, and three counts of armed criminal action. After we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, Perdomo-Paz filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The motion court denied Perdomo-Paz's motion following an evidentiary hearing. Perdomo-Paz appeals. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to evidence that, after Perdomo-Paz's arrest, the motor vehicle he was driving on the night of the murders was sold and destroyed. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Isaac Perdomo-Paz was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree, one count of murder in the second degree, and three counts of armed criminal action. After we affirmed his convictions on direct appeal, Perdomo-Paz filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The motion court denied Perdomo-Paz's motion following an evidentiary hearing. Perdomo-Paz appeals. He argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to evidence that, after Perdomo-Paz's arrest, the motor vehicle he was driving on the night of the murders was sold and destroyed. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 S.W.3d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perdomo-paz-v-state-moctapp-2019.