Ray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ray v. State

103 S.W.3d 280, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 2003 WL 554408

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 2003

DocketNo. WD 60534

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.W.3d 280 (Ray 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

Ray v. State, 103 S.W.3d 280, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 2003 WL 554408 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Fred Ray, Jr. (“Ray”), appeals from the Honorable John R. Hutcherson’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion seeking to vacate his conviction and sentences. Ray raises ten points on appeal. Nine of Ray’s points on appeal can be sorted into the following five arguments as to why he received ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) failure to object to certain statements made by the prosecutor and the trial judge; (2) failure to effectively cross-examine and impeach Deputy Michael Beal; (3) failure to request an instruction on voluntary manslaughter; (4) failure to object to Jury Instruction No. 6, the verdict-directing instruction on second-degree murder, on the ground that it did not include the phrase “malice aforethought”; and (5) failure to properly preserve for appeal the claim that the prosecutor failed to proceed to indictment through trial randomly. In his tenth point on appeal, Ray asserts the motion court erred in denying him relief on his claim that the trial judge failed to recuse himself and/or exceeded his jurisdiction and in denying a hearing on this recusal claim.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Fred Ray, Jr. (“Ray”), appeals from the Honorable John R. Hutcherson’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion seeking to vacate his conviction and sentences. Ray raises ten points on appeal. Nine of Ray’s points on appeal can be sorted into the following five arguments as to why he received ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) failure to object to certain statements made by the prosecutor and the trial judge; (2) failure to effectively cross-examine and impeach Deputy Michael Beal; (3) failure to request an instruction on voluntary manslaughter; (4) failure to object to Jury Instruction No. 6, the verdict-directing instruction on second-degree murder, on the ground that it did not include the phrase “malice aforethought”; and (5) failure to properly preserve for appeal the claim that the prosecutor failed to proceed to indictment through trial randomly. In his tenth point on appeal, Ray asserts the motion court erred in denying him relief on his claim that the trial judge failed to recuse himself and/or exceeded his jurisdiction and in denying a hearing on this recusal claim.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.W.3d 280, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 2003 WL 554408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-state-moctapp-2003.