Ray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ray v. State

254 S.W.3d 103, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2008 WL 638087

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

DocketED 89332

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 S.W.3d 103 (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, 254 S.W.3d 103, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2008 WL 638087 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Ray (hereinafter, “Movant”) was convicted of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed his conviction. State v. Ray, 186 S.W.3d 284 (Mo.App. E.D.2005).

Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel failed to: (1) call witnesses on his behalf; (2) fully investigate the crime scene; (3) impeach the State’s witnesses; (4) develop an alternative perpetrator; and (5) investigate the medical examiner’s report. Movant also alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his appellate counsel failed to raise a point on appeal, claiming Movant’s Miranda rights were violated.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Mo. banc 1995). An extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment of the motion court. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricky Ray (hereinafter, “Movant”) was convicted of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This Court affirmed his conviction. State v. Ray, 186 S.W.3d 284 (Mo.App. E.D.2005).

Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel failed to: (1) call witnesses on his behalf; (2) fully investigate the crime scene; (3) impeach the State’s witnesses; (4) develop an alternative perpetrator; and (5) investigate the medical examiner’s report. Movant also alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his appellate counsel failed to raise a point on appeal, claiming Movant’s Miranda rights were violated.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Mo. banc 1995). An extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment of the motion court. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W.3d 103, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2008 WL 638087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack