Tatum v. State

693 S.W.2d 903, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 4404
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1985
Docket14066
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 693 S.W.2d 903 (Tatum v. State) 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
Tatum v. State, 693 S.W.2d 903, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 4404 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

PREWITT, Chief Judge.

Movant was convicted of assault in the first degree and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. That conviction was affirmed on appeal. See State v. Tatum, 653 S.W.2d 241 (Mo.App.1983). Movant filed a motion under Rule 27.26 seeking to vacate the conviction because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing the trial court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment denying the motion. Movant appeals.

To sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel movant must establish that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different; a reasonable probability being a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Rainwater v. State, 676 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Mo.App.1984).

Movant has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 27.26(f). Our review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions and judgment are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).

Testimony of his trial attorney refuted movant’s contentions. Assessing the credibility of the witnesses was for the trial court. Trimble v. State, 588 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Mo.App.1979). The judgment of the trial court was based on findings of fact which were not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. A further opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

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

Related

State v. Knight
920 S.W.2d 612 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
State v. Enloe
914 S.W.2d 44 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
State v. Ayers
911 S.W.2d 648 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
State v. Easley
909 S.W.2d 376 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
State v. Madewell
904 S.W.2d 66 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
State v. Sonka
893 S.W.2d 388 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
Stith v. State
893 S.W.2d 384 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
Buckle v. State
885 S.W.2d 37 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
State v. White
880 S.W.2d 624 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
State v. Arndt
881 S.W.2d 634 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
Chandler v. State
859 S.W.2d 764 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)
State v. Zerante
825 S.W.2d 41 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992)
State v. Richard
798 S.W.2d 468 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Quinn v. State
794 S.W.2d 327 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
State v. Mansfield
793 S.W.2d 609 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Martin v. State
790 S.W.2d 273 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Brigham v. State
782 S.W.2d 640 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1990)
Conrad v. State
780 S.W.2d 725 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Case v. State
780 S.W.2d 681 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Douglas v. State
768 S.W.2d 228 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
693 S.W.2d 903, 1985 Mo. App. LEXIS 4404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatum-v-state-moctapp-1985.