White v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. State

51 S.W.3d 507, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 973, 2001 WL 641772

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 2001

DocketNo. ED 78506

StatusPublished

This text of 51 S.W.3d 507 (White 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

White v. State, 51 S.W.3d 507, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 973, 2001 WL 641772 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Michael White, was convicted of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action, and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life and twenty years’ imprisonment, respectively. This court affirmed his conviction. State v. White, 11 S.W.3d 698 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). White now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. White alleges that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel in that his trial attorney (1) failed to challenge the composition of the venire panel and jury, which consisted entirely of Caucasians and (2) failed to call a witness whom White claims would have testified that White did not commit the crimes for which he was convicted.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value, 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.

Appellant, Michael White, was convicted of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action, and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of life and twenty years’ imprisonment, respectively. This court affirmed his conviction. State v. White, 11 S.W.3d 698 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). White now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. White alleges that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel in that his trial attorney (1) failed to challenge the composition of the venire panel and jury, which consisted entirely of Caucasians and (2) failed to call a witness whom White claims would have testified that White did not commit the crimes for which he was convicted.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 S.W.3d 507, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 973, 2001 WL 641772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack