Slagle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Slagle v. State

280 S.W.3d 791, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 503, 2009 WL 1045105

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 2009

DocketWD 68954

StatusPublished

This text of 280 S.W.3d 791 (Slagle 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

Slagle v. State, 280 S.W.3d 791, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 503, 2009 WL 1045105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Denis L. Slagle was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, § 566.062, RSMo 2000. He appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. On appeal, Slagle argues that the circuit court erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion because the record establishes that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s introduction of testimony that, on the day he was arrested, Slagle had asked another person to kidnap the victim, an offense for which he was not charged. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Denis L. Slagle was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, § 566.062, RSMo 2000. He appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. On appeal, Slagle argues that the circuit court erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion because the record establishes that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s introduction of testimony that, on the day he was arrested, Slagle had asked another person to kidnap the victim, an offense for which he was not charged. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 S.W.3d 791, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 503, 2009 WL 1045105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slagle-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack