Opinion
No. ED 108932
08-24-2021
Donald COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT: Susan A. DeGeorge, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. FOR RESPONDENT: Nathan J. Aquino, Eric Schmitt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT: Susan A. DeGeorge, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT: Nathan J. Aquino, Eric Schmitt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Michael E. Gardner, P.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Donald Coleman appeals the judgment following an evidentiary hearing denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Coleman was charged, tried by jury, and convicted in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of the class A felony of first-degree robbery, the class B felony of first-degree burglary, the unclassified felony of attempted forcible sodomy, the class B felony of kidnapping, the class C felony of first degree endangering the welfare of a child, and 11 counts of the unclassified felony of armed criminal action. The circuit court sentenced Coleman to an aggregate of 20 years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. We affirmed his convictions and sentences in State v. Coleman , 502 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) and issued our mandate on November 29, 2016.
In his Rule 29.15 motion, Coleman claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's cross-examination of two alibi defense witnesses concerning their failure to inform law enforcement of Coleman's alibi. Additionally, Coleman claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach a State's witness with prior criminal convictions.
On appeal, Coleman raises four points. Coleman's first three points assert the motion court erred in rejecting the arguments in his Rule 29.15 motion stated above. Coleman's fourth point asserts that Count V of his indictment was fatally defective.
We affirm the motion court's denial of Coleman's 29.15 motion because (1) any objection by trial counsel to the cross-examination of the alibi witnesses would have been without merit, (2) trial counsel's decision to not cross-examine the brief testimony of a disabled victim who was unable to identify Coleman, was sound trial strategy, and (3) Coleman's fourth point, which was not properly preserved, is un-reviewable.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).