Schlup v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Schlup v. State

216 S.W.3d 726, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 465, 2007 WL 813910

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 20, 2007·No. No. WD 66882·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Robert Schlup (“Schlup”) appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. Schlup claims that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing [727] to object to the testimony of an expert witness, whose testimony was based, in part, upon the findings of a separate, non-testifying expert. Having fully considered the record on appeal, and finding no prejudice, this court affirms. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Robert Schlup (“Schlup”) appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. Schlup claims that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing [727] to object to the testimony of an expert witness, whose testimony was based, in part, upon the findings of a separate, non-testifying expert. Having fully considered the record on appeal, and finding no prejudice, this court affirms. Rule 84.16(b).

Schlup v. State, 216 S.W.3d 726, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 465, 2007 WL 813910 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

216 S.W.3d 726 (Schlup v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.