Williamson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williamson v. State

743 S.W.2d 552, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 5038, 1987 WL 2389

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 8, 1987

DocketNo. 52826

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 743 S.W.2d 552 (Williamson 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

Williamson v. State, 743 S.W.2d 552, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 5038, 1987 WL 2389 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. His conviction for Second Degree Murder and the thirty-year prison sentence imposed for that conviction were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Williamson, 657 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1983). We affirm.

Movant claims his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not call as a witness the medical examiner who autopsied the victim, and because he did not introduce the autopsy report into evidence. At the evidentiary hearing, counsel testified that in his opinion neither the medical examiner nor the autopsy report would have helped movant prove his defenses of accident or self-defense. Movant testified he “left all the trial strategy up to [his] attorney.” We agree the decisions were ones of trial strategy. Franklin v. State, 655 S.W.2d 561, 565[12] (Mo.App.1983).

The judgment is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

[553]*553Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

GARY M. GAERTNER, 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 appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. His conviction for Second Degree Murder and the thirty-year prison sentence imposed for that conviction were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Williamson, 657 S.W.2d 311 (Mo.App.1983). We affirm.

Movant claims his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not call as a witness the medical examiner who autopsied the victim, and because he did not introduce the autopsy report into evidence. At the evidentiary hearing, counsel testified that in his opinion neither the medical examiner nor the autopsy report would have helped movant prove his defenses of accident or self-defense. Movant testified he “left all the trial strategy up to [his] attorney.” We agree the decisions were ones of trial strategy. Franklin v. State, 655 S.W.2d 561, 565[12] (Mo.App.1983).

The judgment is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

[553]*553Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

743 S.W.2d 552, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 5038, 1987 WL 2389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-state-moctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack