Williams v. State

Supreme Court of Missouri

Williams v. State

456 S.W.3d 100, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 263, 2015 WL 1089959

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedMarch 10, 2015

DocketWD 76846

StatusPublished

This text of 456 S.W.3d 100 (Williams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. State, 456 S.W.3d 100, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 263, 2015 WL 1089959 (Mo. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Damon Williams appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Williams sought to vacate his convictions for first-degree murder, section 565.020,¹ first-degree robbery, section 569.020, and armed criminal action, section 571.015, and sentences of life without probation or parole, twenty years, and fifteen years imprisonment, the fifteen years to run consecutive to the other two concurrent sentences. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel made “repeated misstatements of the facts supporting [his] theory of defense,” thereby “affect[ing] the jury’s [101]*101understanding of the case and impacting] its verdiet[.]” Because a published opinion would have no'precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Damon Williams appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Williams sought to vacate his convictions for first-degree murder, section 565.020,¹ first-degree robbery, section 569.020, and armed criminal action, section 571.015, and sentences of life without probation or parole, twenty years, and fifteen years imprisonment, the fifteen years to run consecutive to the other two concurrent sentences. He claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel made “repeated misstatements of the facts supporting [his] theory of defense,” thereby “affect[ing] the jury’s [101]*101understanding of the case and impacting] its verdiet[.]” Because a published opinion would have no'precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 S.W.3d 100, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 263, 2015 WL 1089959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-mo-2015.