Sprinkle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sprinkle v. State

223 S.W.3d 866, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 535, 2007 WL 968667

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 3, 2007

DocketWD 66787

StatusPublished

This text of 223 S.W.3d 866 (Sprinkle 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

Sprinkle v. State, 223 S.W.3d 866, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 535, 2007 WL 968667 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Mark W. Sprinkle appeals from the motion court’s order overruling, after an evi-dentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Platte County, the appellant was convicted of two counts of the class C felony of child molestation in the first degree, in violation of § 566.067, RSMo 2000, and sentenced to consecutive prison terms of six years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

The appellant raises one point on appeal. He claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion, after an evidentiary hearing, for ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a witness at trial, because the findings and conclusions of the motion court, in denying his motion, that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counselors’ failure to call his mother, Sharon Hansen, as a witness at trial, and that in any event, he was not prejudiced thereby, are clearly erroneous.

We affirm 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.

Mark W. Sprinkle appeals from the motion court’s order overruling, after an evi-dentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Platte County, the appellant was convicted of two counts of the class C felony of child molestation in the first degree, in violation of § 566.067, RSMo 2000, and sentenced to consecutive prison terms of six years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

The appellant raises one point on appeal. He claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion, after an evidentiary hearing, for ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a witness at trial, because the findings and conclusions of the motion court, in denying his motion, that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counselors’ failure to call his mother, Sharon Hansen, as a witness at trial, and that in any event, he was not prejudiced thereby, are clearly erroneous.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 S.W.3d 866, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 535, 2007 WL 968667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sprinkle-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack