Seaton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Seaton v. State

359 S.W.3d 562, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 246, 2012 WL 612458

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 2012

DocketWD 72163

StatusPublished

This text of 359 S.W.3d 562 (Seaton 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

Seaton v. State, 359 S.W.3d 562, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 246, 2012 WL 612458 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Seaton appeals the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Seaton was found guilty of statutory sodomy in the first-degree and sentenced as a prior offender and a persistent sexual offender to thirty years of imprisonment without probation or parole. Seaton contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) call two witnesses; and (2) create and offer into evidence a videotape, instead of the photographs and diagrams that were presented by trial counsel, of the home where the crime was alleged to have occurred to demonstrate that Seaton could not have *563 been alone with the victim. 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:

Brandon Seaton appeals the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Seaton was found guilty of statutory sodomy in the first-degree and sentenced as a prior offender and a persistent sexual offender to thirty years of imprisonment without probation or parole. Seaton contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: (1) call two witnesses; and (2) create and offer into evidence a videotape, instead of the photographs and diagrams that were presented by trial counsel, of the home where the crime was alleged to have occurred to demonstrate that Seaton could not have *563 been alone with the victim. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.W.3d 562, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 246, 2012 WL 612458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaton-v-state-moctapp-2012.