Ruff v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ruff v. State

560 S.W.3d 2

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 17, 2018

DocketWD 80062

StatusPublished

This text of 560 S.W.3d 2 (Ruff 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

Ruff v. State, 560 S.W.3d 2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Ruff pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Jackson County to one count of murder in the second degree, three counts of assault in the first degree, one count of robbery in the first degree, and five counts of armed criminal action. Ruff filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035, which the circuit court denied following an evidentiary hearing. Ruff appeals. He asserts that his counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to present mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing concerning Ruff's adolescence, and the state of his brain development given his age. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo Ruff pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court of Jackson County to one count of murder in the second degree, three counts of assault in the first degree, one count of robbery in the first degree, and five counts of armed criminal action. Ruff filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035, which the circuit court denied following an evidentiary hearing. Ruff appeals. He asserts that his counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to present mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing concerning Ruff's adolescence, and the state of his brain development given his age. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 S.W.3d 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruff-v-state-moctapp-2018.