State v. Varner

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Varner

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 9, 1991·No. Nos. 56480, 58762·Published

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.

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

Pincite

811 S.W.2d 72 (State v. Varner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related