Rice v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rice v. State

546 S.W.3d 623

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105634

StatusPublished

This text of 546 S.W.3d 623 (Rice 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

Rice v. State, 546 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Michael Rice appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Rice's sole point on appeal is that the motion court erred in denying relief because he proved his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain evidentiary challenges for plain error review. We hold that because appellate counsel was not required to raise unpreserved issues for plain error review, and because Rice was not prejudiced by appellate counsel's failure to raise such issues, Rice's sole point is denied. Accordingly, 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

PER CURIAM

Michael Rice appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Rice's sole point on appeal is that the motion court erred in denying relief because he proved his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain evidentiary challenges for plain error review. We hold that because appellate counsel was not required to raise unpreserved issues for plain error review, and because Rice was not prejudiced by appellate counsel's failure to raise such issues, Rice's sole point is denied. Accordingly, 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 S.W.3d 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-state-moctapp-2018.