Ragland v. State
This text of 547 S.W.3d 823 (Ragland 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.
Opinion
Jacob Ragland appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Ragland raises three points on appeal claiming the motion court erred because his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) untimely requesting jurors be allowed to take notes, (2) failing to examine various witnesses regarding one of the victims, J.F., seeing his mother ("Mother"), engage in sexual intercourse, and (3) failing to examine various witnesses regarding J.F. watching pornography. Finding no error, we affirm.
An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
547 S.W.3d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragland-v-state-moctapp-2018.