Thompson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thompson v. State

567 S.W.3d 304

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 19, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106273

StatusPublished

This text of 567 S.W.3d 304 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State, 567 S.W.3d 304 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Andrew G. Thompson ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the motion court, denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to adequately object to speculative testimony as to Movant's state of mind, and opinion and interpretation of his body language and gestures; (2) unreasonably adducing evidence of a prior uncharged incident of *305sexual misconduct by Movant against Victim; and (3) failing to call a witness to testify in Movant's defense. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).

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

PER CURIAM.

Andrew G. Thompson ("Movant") appeals from the judgment of the motion court, denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to adequately object to speculative testimony as to Movant's state of mind, and opinion and interpretation of his body language and gestures; (2) unreasonably adducing evidence of a prior uncharged incident of *305sexual misconduct by Movant against Victim; and (3) failing to call a witness to testify in Movant's defense. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 S.W.3d 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-moctapp-2019.