Thigpen v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thigpen v. State

234 S.W.3d 450, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 999, 2007 WL 1859017

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 2007

DocketED 88469

StatusPublished

This text of 234 S.W.3d 450 (Thigpen 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

Thigpen v. State, 234 S.W.3d 450, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 999, 2007 WL 1859017 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laterrence Thigpen (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying Movant relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts not refuted by the record that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert error on appeal in the trial court’s overruling defense counsel’s objection when the prosecutor made the comment in rebuttal closing argument, “Well, I guess you have to say something,” because the comment was a reference to Defendant’s failure to testify-

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laterrence Thigpen (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying Movant relief without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts not refuted by the record that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert error on appeal in the trial court’s overruling defense counsel’s objection when the prosecutor made the comment in rebuttal closing argument, “Well, I guess you have to say something,” because the comment was a reference to Defendant’s failure to testify-

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 S.W.3d 450, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 999, 2007 WL 1859017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thigpen-v-state-moctapp-2007.