State v. Davis

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Davis

920 S.W.2d 108, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 353, 1996 WL 93817

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 1996

DocketNos. 64803, 68326

StatusPublished

This text of 920 S.W.2d 108 (State v. Davis) 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

State v. Davis, 920 S.W.2d 108, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 353, 1996 WL 93817 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tracy Davis appeals convictions and sentences on five felony charges. He also appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

There are two issues on direct appeal. First, Davis maintains the evidence does not support a finding he was a prior and persistent offender. Second, he argues the trial court erred in fading to grant a mistrial or other relief because of a comment made by the trial court. These claims of error are without merit and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The convictions and sentences are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The only PCR issue on appeal is whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an identified alibi witness. There was evidence to support a finding trial counsel determined the witness would not be helpful after sufficient investigation. The witness was not called as a matter of trial strategy. Decisions regarding trial strategy are not the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. State v. Huggans, 868 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). The findings and judgment of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion on this issue would have no prece-dential value. Denial of Rule 29.15 relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tracy Davis appeals convictions and sentences on five felony charges. He also appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

There are two issues on direct appeal. First, Davis maintains the evidence does not support a finding he was a prior and persistent offender. Second, he argues the trial court erred in fading to grant a mistrial or other relief because of a comment made by the trial court. These claims of error are without merit and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The convictions and sentences are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The only PCR issue on appeal is whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an identified alibi witness. There was evidence to support a finding trial counsel determined the witness would not be helpful after sufficient investigation. The witness was not called as a matter of trial strategy. Decisions regarding trial strategy are not the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. State v. Huggans, 868 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). The findings and judgment of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion on this issue would have no prece-dential value. Denial of Rule 29.15 relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 S.W.2d 108, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 353, 1996 WL 93817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack