Sittner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sittner v. State

326 S.W.3d 551, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1655, 2010 WL 4751723

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 23, 2010

DocketED 94643

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 326 S.W.3d 551 (Sittner 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

Sittner v. State, 326 S.W.3d 551, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1655, 2010 WL 4751723 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Sittner appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Sittner’s convictions, following a jury trial, of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree statutory sodomy, and two counts of incest. State v. Sittner, 294 S.W.3d 90 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Sitt-ner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to move to exclude, or object at trial, to the testimony of a social worker who commented on the truthfulness of the complaining witness, and therefore, invaded the province of the jury. We affirm the motion court’s decision.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Sittner appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed Sittner’s convictions, following a jury trial, of first-degree statutory rape, first-degree statutory sodomy, and two counts of incest. State v. Sittner, 294 S.W.3d 90 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Sitt-ner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to move to exclude, or object at trial, to the testimony of a social worker who commented on the truthfulness of the complaining witness, and therefore, invaded the province of the jury. We affirm the motion court’s decision.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 S.W.3d 551, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1655, 2010 WL 4751723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sittner-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack