From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holly v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Feb 13, 2001
36 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. 58296

February 13, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, THE HONORABLE JAMES D. WILLIAMSON, JR., JUDGE.

Tara L. Jensen, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon and Emily K. Wiggins, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before James M. Smart, Jr., Presiding Judge, Joseph M. Ellis, Judge and Laura Denvir Stith, Judge.

ORDER


Mr. Holly appeals the denial without an evidentiary hearing of his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. He alleges that the motion court should have granted him a hearing on his claim that his attorney was ineffective in failing to present sufficient and available mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing, and that if he had known that counsel was going to fail to present this mitigating evidence he would not have pleaded guilty but would have proceeded to trial. For the reasons set out in a memorandum provided to the parties, we find that the record conclusively refutes Mr. Holly's allegations, and affirm. Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Holly v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Feb 13, 2001
36 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Holly v. State

Case Details

Full title:RODERICK HOLLY, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District

Date published: Feb 13, 2001

Citations

36 S.W.3d 801 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)