Wyble v. State

326 S.W.3d 95, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2010 WL 3540898
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 14, 2010·No. WD 71173·Published

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Wyble (“Wyble”) appeals the Circuit Court of DeKalb County’s (“motion court”) judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion to vacate his conviction of first-degree statutory sodomy, section 566.062. Wyble contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because his trial counsel failed to act as a reasonably competent attorney. More specifically, Wyble argues that his trial counsel (1) failed to timely object to certain hearsay testimony; (2) failed to assert, in the motion for new trial, that the admission of hearsay statements violated Wyble’s right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him; and (3) wrongfully opened the door for testimony that was non-responsive, irrelevant, and misleading. We disagree and affirm the motion court’s judgment in this per curiam order and have provided the parties a memorandum explaining our ruling. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Wyble v. State, 326 S.W.3d 95, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2010 WL 3540898 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

326 S.W.3d 95 (Wyble v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Wyble
211 S.W.3d 125 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)