State v. Yardley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Yardley

801 S.W.2d 716, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1720, 1990 WL 182386

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1990

DocketNo. 16830

StatusPublished

This text of 801 S.W.2d 716 (State v. Yardley) 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. Yardley, 801 S.W.2d 716, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1720, 1990 WL 182386 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

Following jury trial defendant was found guilty of resisting arrest and sentenced to fourteen days in the county jail and fined $100.00. Defendant appeals.

On appeal defendant presents one point relied on, stating that he “received ineffective assistance of counsel in that defendant’s trial counsel only met with defendant twice to discuss trial strategy, which was an insufficient amount of time, and defendant was therefore prejudiced by having unprepared counsel”. He contends that because of the inadequate time that his attorney spent with him, the attorney did not present evidence which would have been favorable to him and which “may have raised a reasonable doubt with the jury.”

At the outset, we note that normally ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not raised on a direct appeal. However, when the record is sufficient, for example as at a new trial motion hearing, as was done here, such a claim can be reviewed. State v. Settle, 670 S.W.2d 7, 13 (Mo.App.1984). As defendant correctly notes, Rule 29.15, which ordinarily would be a vehicle for testing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, applies only to felonies. Rule 29.15(a).

To show ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must establish that his attorney failed to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would and that he was prejudiced. Roberts v. State, 775 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1506, 108 L.Ed.2d 640 (1990).

Defendant’s trial attorney testified that he had met with defendant “about half a dozen” times before the trial. He had an investigation made of potential witnesses and called the only two witnesses given to him by defendant that were present when the offense allegedly occurred. There was ample evidence to support the trial court’s finding that defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

The judgment is affirmed.

MAUS, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

Following jury trial defendant was found guilty of resisting arrest and sentenced to fourteen days in the county jail and fined $100.00. Defendant appeals.

On appeal defendant presents one point relied on, stating that he “received ineffective assistance of counsel in that defendant’s trial counsel only met with defendant twice to discuss trial strategy, which was an insufficient amount of time, and defendant was therefore prejudiced by having unprepared counsel”. He contends that because of the inadequate time that his attorney spent with him, the attorney did not present evidence which would have been favorable to him and which “may have raised a reasonable doubt with the jury.”

At the outset, we note that normally ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not raised on a direct appeal. However, when the record is sufficient, for example as at a new trial motion hearing, as was done here, such a claim can be reviewed. State v. Settle, 670 S.W.2d 7, 13 (Mo.App.1984). As defendant correctly notes, Rule 29.15, which ordinarily would be a vehicle for testing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, applies only to felonies. Rule 29.15(a).

To show ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must establish that his attorney failed to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would and that he was prejudiced. Roberts v. State, 775 S.W.2d 92, 94 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1506, 108 L.Ed.2d 640 (1990).

Defendant’s trial attorney testified that he had met with defendant “about half a dozen” times before the trial. He had an investigation made of potential witnesses and called the only two witnesses given to him by defendant that were present when the offense allegedly occurred. There was ample evidence to support the trial court’s finding that defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

The judgment is affirmed.

MAUS, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

801 S.W.2d 716, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1720, 1990 WL 182386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-yardley-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack