Rucker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rucker v. State

515 S.W.3d 834, 2017 WL 1322144, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 292

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 2017

DocketWD 79475

StatusPublished

This text of 515 S.W.3d 834 (Rucker 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

Rucker v. State, 515 S.W.3d 834, 2017 WL 1322144, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

John Rucker appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rucker sought to vacate his conviction for three counts of forcible rape, section 566.030, two counts of forcible sodomy, section 566.060, and two counts of felonious restraint, section 565.120, and sentence of thirty-seven years imprisonment. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to call an additional witness and failed to file a motion to sever the charges regarding the two victims. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

John Rucker appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rucker sought to vacate his conviction for three counts of forcible rape, section 566.030, two counts of forcible sodomy, section 566.060, and two counts of felonious restraint, section 565.120, and sentence of thirty-seven years imprisonment. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to call an additional witness and failed to file a motion to sever the charges regarding the two victims. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 S.W.3d 834, 2017 WL 1322144, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rucker-v-state-moctapp-2017.