Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. State

344 S.W.3d 217, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 507, 2011 WL 1531254

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 12, 2011

DocketED 94839

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 344 S.W.3d 217 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 344 S.W.3d 217, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 507, 2011 WL 1531254 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*218 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Taylor (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo (2000), and was sentenced as a persistent sex offender to a term of one hundred years’ imprisonment without parole. Movant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Taylor, 238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. banc 2007). Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises four points on appeal, bringing claims of ineffective assistance of defense counsel and appellate counsel, and challenging the motion court’s ruling barring him from contacting jurors about alleged juror misconduct.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

*218 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Taylor (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo (2000), and was sentenced as a persistent sex offender to a term of one hundred years’ imprisonment without parole. Movant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Taylor, 238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. banc 2007). Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises four points on appeal, bringing claims of ineffective assistance of defense counsel and appellate counsel, and challenging the motion court’s ruling barring him from contacting jurors about alleged juror misconduct.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 S.W.3d 217, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 507, 2011 WL 1531254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack