Roggenbuck v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Roggenbuck v. State

469 S.W.3d 458, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 459, 2015 WL 1920726

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 28, 2015·No. WD 77070·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Per curiam:

Robin Roggenbuck appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Roggen-buck contends that the motion court clearly erred in finding that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not object to three verdict directors which failed to specify a particular incident of alleged possession of child pornography, making it unclear as to which of several incidents Roggenbuck was found guilty. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Per curiam:

Robin Roggenbuck appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Roggen-buck contends that the motion court clearly erred in finding that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not object to three verdict directors which failed to specify a particular incident of alleged possession of child pornography, making it unclear as to which of several incidents Roggenbuck was found guilty. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Roggenbuck v. State, 469 S.W.3d 458, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 459, 2015 WL 1920726 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

469 S.W.3d 458 (Roggenbuck v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.