Rauch v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rauch v. State

254 S.W.3d 98, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 309, 2008 WL 630710

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

DocketWD 68226

StatusPublished

This text of 254 S.W.3d 98 (Rauch 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

Rauch v. State, 254 S.W.3d 98, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 309, 2008 WL 630710 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial, without a hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. At trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and attempted first-degree arson. He now claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in consenting to a mistrial and that, in absence of such consent, he would have been free from subsequent prosecution under the double jeopardy protection of the Fifth Amendment. After reviewing the record and considering the arguments, this court concludes that the motion court correctly denied Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion and that a hearing was not required in this instance. An extended *99 opinion would have no precedential value. A memorandum explaining this court’s reasons for so deciding has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial, without a hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. At trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and attempted first-degree arson. He now claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in consenting to a mistrial and that, in absence of such consent, he would have been free from subsequent prosecution under the double jeopardy protection of the Fifth Amendment. After reviewing the record and considering the arguments, this court concludes that the motion court correctly denied Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion and that a hearing was not required in this instance. An extended *99 opinion would have no precedential value. A memorandum explaining this court’s reasons for so deciding has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W.3d 98, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 309, 2008 WL 630710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rauch-v-state-moctapp-2008.