Ward v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ward v. State

341 S.W.3d 890, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 731, 2011 WL 2139826

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 31, 2011

DocketED 95466

StatusPublished

This text of 341 S.W.3d 890 (Ward 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

Ward v. State, 341 S.W.3d 890, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 731, 2011 WL 2139826 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Uvone Ward (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying without an evidentiary hearing his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to investigate and call a witness; (2) failing to adequately prepare Movant to testify on his own behalf; (3) failing to object to the improper joinder of defendants and request a severance of defendants prior to trial; (4) continuing to question a State’s witness after the count relating to that witness had been dismissed; and (5) failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments in closing argument. Movant also claims that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to appeal the issue of the prosecutor’s allegedly improper vouching during closing argument.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Uvone Ward (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying without an evidentiary hearing his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to investigate and call a witness; (2) failing to adequately prepare Movant to testify on his own behalf; (3) failing to object to the improper joinder of defendants and request a severance of defendants prior to trial; (4) continuing to question a State’s witness after the count relating to that witness had been dismissed; and (5) failing to object to the prosecutor’s comments in closing argument. Movant also claims that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to appeal the issue of the prosecutor’s allegedly improper vouching during closing argument.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 890, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 731, 2011 WL 2139826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-moctapp-2011.