Peterson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peterson v. State

516 S.W.3d 838, 2017 WL 487000, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 62

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2017

DocketWD 79397

StatusPublished

This text of 516 S.W.3d 838 (Peterson 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

Peterson v. State, 516 S.W.3d 838, 2017 WL 487000, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 62 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Zachariah Peterson appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconvietion relief following an evidentiary hearing. Peterson sought to vacate his conviction and sentence for felony murder in the second degree, section 565.021, RSMo 2000. He claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the felony murder verdict director based on the omission of the element of causation and the failure to relate the death to the underlying felony. He also claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim of plain error that the verdict director for felony murder was improper for the same reasons. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment 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:

Zachariah Peterson appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconvietion relief following an evidentiary hearing. Peterson sought to vacate his conviction and sentence for felony murder in the second degree, section 565.021, RSMo 2000. He claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the felony murder verdict director based on the omission of the element of causation and the failure to relate the death to the underlying felony. He also claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim of plain error that the verdict director for felony murder was improper for the same reasons. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 S.W.3d 838, 2017 WL 487000, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-state-moctapp-2017.