Polk v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Polk v. State

566 S.W.3d 641

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 2018

DocketWD 80984

StatusPublished

This text of 566 S.W.3d 641 (Polk 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 S.W.3d 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polk-v-state-moctapp-2018.