Trotter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Trotter v. State

591 S.W.2d 144, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3248

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 30, 1979

DocketNo. 41065

StatusPublished

This text of 591 S.W.2d 144 (Trotter 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

Trotter v. State, 591 S.W.2d 144, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3248 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Movant was convicted by a jury of second degree murder in violation of § 559.020, RSMol969. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. See State v. Trotter, 536 S.W.2d 877 (Mo.App.1976).

Subsequently movant filed a Rule 27.26 motion in which he challenged the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Specifically, movant complained that his trial counsel was the partner of another lawyer charged with the responsibility of representing mov-ant’s co-indictee and thus, avers movant, a conflict of interest arose which operated to prejudice his right to effective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing wherein both movant and his trial counsel testified, the circuit court concluded such was not the case.

The circuit court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears and an opinion would have no precedential value. [145]*145Accordingly, and in compliance with Rule 84.16(b), the judgment is affirmed.

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Movant was convicted by a jury of second degree murder in violation of § 559.020, RSMol969. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. See State v. Trotter, 536 S.W.2d 877 (Mo.App.1976).

Subsequently movant filed a Rule 27.26 motion in which he challenged the effectiveness of his trial counsel. Specifically, movant complained that his trial counsel was the partner of another lawyer charged with the responsibility of representing mov-ant’s co-indictee and thus, avers movant, a conflict of interest arose which operated to prejudice his right to effective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing wherein both movant and his trial counsel testified, the circuit court concluded such was not the case.

The circuit court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears and an opinion would have no precedential value. [145]*145Accordingly, and in compliance with Rule 84.16(b), the judgment is affirmed.

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 S.W.2d 144, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trotter-v-state-moctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack