Wyble v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wyble v. State

326 S.W.3d 95, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2010 WL 3540898

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 2010

DocketWD 71173

StatusPublished

This text of 326 S.W.3d 95 (Wyble 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

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

Pincite

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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 S.W.3d 95, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197, 2010 WL 3540898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wyble-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack