Beckett v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Deleon v. State

    690 S.W.3d 535 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    To establish the performance prong, DeLeon must "overcome a strong presumption that [trial] counsel provided competent assistance." Beckett v. State, 675 S.W.3d 533, 540 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 425 (Mo. banc 2002)). DeLeon must meet this standard by "identifying specific acts or omissions of [trial] counsel that, in light of all the circumstances, fell outside the wide range of professional competent assistance."

  2. Deleon v. State

    No. ED111372 (Mo. Ct. App. May. 7, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    To establish the performance prong, DeLeon must "overcome a strong presumption that [trial] counsel provided competent assistance." Beckett v. State, 675 S.W.3d 533, 540 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 425 (Mo. banc 2002)). DeLeon must meet this standard by "identifying specific acts or omissions of [trial] counsel that, in light of all the circumstances, fell outside the wide range of professional competent assistance."

  3. Miller-Kirkland v. State

    697 S.W.3d 867 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Had trial counsel elected to hire Consultant, who could not rule out the possibility that Victim was shot on the floor, such testimony may have refocused "doubt" on Miller-Kirkland’s self-defense argument and away from the State’s burden of proof.Miller-Kirkland argues he is entitled to a reversal based on Beckett v. State, 675 S.W.3d 533 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023), but Beckett is distinguishable. In Beckett, the defendant ("Beckett") claimed he went to clear a handgun, but that in the process of doing so, the handgun discharged and released two bullets, killing his wife.

  4. Wood v. State

    685 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    He cites several cases in which courts have granted a new trial due to a failure to introduce evidence that would have refuted a State’s witness. Beckett v. State, 675 S.W.3d 533 (Mo. App. 2023); Gennetten v. State, 96 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. 2003); Cravens v. State, 50 S.W.3d 290 (Mo. App. 2001). However, these cases are distinguishable because each involved testimony that, if believed, would have disproved an element of the offense.