Polk v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Polk v. State

566 S.W.3d 641

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Polk v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 539 S.W.3d 808 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 18, 2018·No. WD 80984·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Polk appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. He claims the motion court erred because his waiver of counsel was not voluntary, unequivocal, knowing, and intelligent. Polk further argues the motion court erred in that he only testified because he did not know the jury would be instructed to not presume guilt if he had elected not to testify. 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

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Polk appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. He claims the motion court erred because his waiver of counsel was not voluntary, unequivocal, knowing, and intelligent. Polk further argues the motion court erred in that he only testified because he did not know the jury would be instructed to not presume guilt if he had elected not to testify. 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).

Polk v. State, 566 S.W.3d 641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

566 S.W.3d 641 (Polk v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.