Phares v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Phares v. State

553 S.W.3d 887

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 7, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105769

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 553 S.W.3d 887 (Phares 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

Phares v. State, 553 S.W.3d 887 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Homer Phares ("Movant") appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present testimony from a qualified psychiatrist at the guilt and penalty phases of trial that Movant was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the *888crime caused by a series of strokes, and that Movant could not conform his conduct to what the law requires because of the brain damage he suffered from the stokes. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).

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

PER CURIAM.

Homer Phares ("Movant") appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present testimony from a qualified psychiatrist at the guilt and penalty phases of trial that Movant was suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the *888crime caused by a series of strokes, and that Movant could not conform his conduct to what the law requires because of the brain damage he suffered from the stokes. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 S.W.3d 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phares-v-state-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack