State v. Holmes

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Holmes

967 S.W.2d 725, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1018, 1998 WL 278176

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 2, 1998

DocketNos. WD 52081, WD 54502

StatusPublished

This text of 967 S.W.2d 725 (State v. Holmes) 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. Holmes, 967 S.W.2d 725, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1018, 1998 WL 278176 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-Movant was convicted of robbery first degree, armed criminal action, resisting arrest, and possession of a controlled substance. On direct appeal he seeks reversal, under plain error, for the prosecutor’s closing argument. In his Rule 29.15 appeal he asserts counsel was incompetent for failure to object in closing argument, and for failing to seek a change of venue based on pretrial publicity. Judgments affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant-Movant was convicted of robbery first degree, armed criminal action, resisting arrest, and possession of a controlled substance. On direct appeal he seeks reversal, under plain error, for the prosecutor’s closing argument. In his Rule 29.15 appeal he asserts counsel was incompetent for failure to object in closing argument, and for failing to seek a change of venue based on pretrial publicity. Judgments affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

967 S.W.2d 725, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1018, 1998 WL 278176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-holmes-moctapp-1998.