Thomas v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thomas v. State

518 S.W.3d 858, 2017 WL 1488135, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 332

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 25, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104123

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 858 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. State, 518 S.W.3d 858, 2017 WL 1488135, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 332 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

[859]*859ORDER

Shawn Thomas (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek to exclude certain testimony at trial on the basis that it was not legally relevant. Movant claims that but for his counsel’s ineffective assistance, he would have been acquitted on all counts. We affirm, finding that the testimony at issue would not have been excluded and Movant’s counsel was therefore not ineffective for failing to seek its exclusion.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[859]*859ORDER

Shawn Thomas (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek to exclude certain testimony at trial on the basis that it was not legally relevant. Movant claims that but for his counsel’s ineffective assistance, he would have been acquitted on all counts. We affirm, finding that the testimony at issue would not have been excluded and Movant’s counsel was therefore not ineffective for failing to seek its exclusion.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 858, 2017 WL 1488135, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-moctapp-2017.