State v. Varner

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Varner

811 S.W.2d 72, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1055

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 9, 1991

DocketNos. 56480, 58762

StatusPublished

This text of 811 S.W.2d 72 (State v. Varner) 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. Varner, 811 S.W.2d 72, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1055 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant/movant appeals from his conviction by a jury of a third offense of stealing and his enhanced punishment as a persistent offender of fifteen years. He also appeals from denial of his post-conviction motion pursuant to Rule 29.15. On direct appeal he challenges only the double enhancement” of his punishment. That issue has been ruled against him in State v. Ewanchen, 799 S.W.2d 607 (Mo. banc 1990). His appeal from denial of his post-conviction motion is based on his contention of ineffective assistance of counsel because of counsel’s failure to investigate witnesses. No evidence was adduced at the hearing of the identity of the witnesses, their location, their availability to testify, or the nature of their testimony. See Hogshooter v. State, 681 S.W.2d 20 (Mo.App.1984). Movant’s unproven allegations in his motion on these matters do not entitle him to relief under Rule 29.15. An opinion would have no precedential value. Judgments affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

All concur.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant/movant appeals from his conviction by a jury of a third offense of stealing and his enhanced punishment as a persistent offender of fifteen years. He also appeals from denial of his post-conviction motion pursuant to Rule 29.15. On direct appeal he challenges only the double enhancement” of his punishment. That issue has been ruled against him in State v. Ewanchen, 799 S.W.2d 607 (Mo. banc 1990). His appeal from denial of his post-conviction motion is based on his contention of ineffective assistance of counsel because of counsel’s failure to investigate witnesses. No evidence was adduced at the hearing of the identity of the witnesses, their location, their availability to testify, or the nature of their testimony. See Hogshooter v. State, 681 S.W.2d 20 (Mo.App.1984). Movant’s unproven allegations in his motion on these matters do not entitle him to relief under Rule 29.15. An opinion would have no precedential value. Judgments affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

811 S.W.2d 72, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-varner-moctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack