White v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

White v. State

541 S.W.3d 14

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 27, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105575

StatusPublished

This text of 541 S.W.3d 14 (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, 541 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul C. White ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object on grounds of hearsay and confrontation to the admission of Movant's police interview in which the interviewing detective recounted the statements of Movant's co-defendant about where Movant had hidden the murder weapon, and (2) failing to object when the State cross-examined Movant about his prior robbery conviction. 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) (2015).

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

PER CURIAM.

Paul C. White ("Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object on grounds of hearsay and confrontation to the admission of Movant's police interview in which the interviewing detective recounted the statements of Movant's co-defendant about where Movant had hidden the murder weapon, and (2) failing to object when the State cross-examined Movant about his prior robbery conviction. 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) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 S.W.3d 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-moctapp-2018.