Opinion
No. ED 106965
08-13-2019
James V. KOBERMANN, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT, Gwenda R. Robinson, Missouri Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. FOR RESPONDENT, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT, Gwenda R. Robinson, Missouri Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J. and Lisa P. Page, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
James Kobermann, Sr. ("Kobermann") appeals the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his amended motion for post-conviction relief under Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 29.15. After jury trial, Kobermann was convicted of felony murder in the second degree under § 565.021 RSMo and distribution of a controlled substance under § 195.211 RSMo. On these charges, he was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment and thirty years imprisonment, respectively. This Court affirmed his conviction by order and memorandum under Rule 30.25 after direct appeal in State v. Kobermann , 530 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).
All rule citations are to Missouri Supreme Court rules (2017) unless otherwise indicated.
All statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (2016) unless otherwise indicated.
--------
The motion court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law denying his timely filed motion for post-conviction relief on June 15, 2018. Kobermann now raises three points on appeal. In Point I, Kobermann argues the motion court clearly erred denying his claim he received ineffective assistance when trial counsel did not offer a jury instruction for the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter to the charge of second degree felony murder. In Point II, Kobermann argues the motion court clearly erred denying his claim he received ineffective assistance along similar lines with the lesser-included offense of possession to the charge of distribution of a controlled substance. In Point III, Kobermann argues the motion court clearly erred in "failing to consider" his argument trial counsel was ineffective for not consulting with him on submitting such lesser-included offense instructions Kobermann would have requested.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.
Finding no clear error, we affirm under Rule 84.16.