From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jun 18, 2013
400 S.W.3d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. WD 75268.

2013-06-18

Roger L. CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Daniel F. Kellogg, Judge. Evan J. Buchheiim, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant. Daniem S. De Loyola, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.


Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Daniel F. Kellogg, Judge.
Evan J. Buchheiim, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant. Daniem S. De Loyola, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Before Division Three: JOSEPH M. ELLIS, LISA WHITE HARDWICK and CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, JJ.

Order


PER CURIAM.

Roger Clark appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after he was convicted of first-degree statutory sodomy. Clark contends the motion court erred in denying post-conviction relief because his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mitigation evidence at his sentencing hearing. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)


Summaries of

Clark v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jun 18, 2013
400 S.W.3d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)
Case details for

Clark v. State

Case Details

Full title:Roger L. CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Date published: Jun 18, 2013

Citations

400 S.W.3d 910 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)