From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Homan v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Mar 25, 2014
425 S.W.3d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

Opinion

No. WD 76504.

2014-03-25

Charles HOMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, Daniel F. Kellogg, Judge. Jeannette L. Igbenebor, for Appellant. Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Jefferson City, for Respondent.


Appeal from the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri, Daniel F. Kellogg, Judge.
Jeannette L. Igbenebor, for Appellant. Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Jefferson City, for Respondent.
Before Division Four: JAMES E. WELSH, Chief Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge and THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge.

ORDER


PER CURIAM:

Appellant Charles Homan appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Appellant contends that the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion because his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the testimony of six witnesses that Appellant alleges improperly bolstered the victim's testimony. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Homan v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Mar 25, 2014
425 S.W.3d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)
Case details for

Homan v. State

Case Details

Full title:Charles HOMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Date published: Mar 25, 2014

Citations

425 S.W.3d 222 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)