Opinion
No. ED 111408
11-21-2023
John P. MAHAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT: Mark A. Grothoff, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203. FOR RESPONDENT: Julia E. Rives, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County, Honorable Jason Lamb, Judge
FOR APPELLANT: Mark A. Grothoff, Missouri Public Defender’s Office, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.
FOR RESPONDENT: Julia E. Rives, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Philip M. Hess, J., and Cristian M. Stevens, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
John Mahan ("Movant") appeals the motion court’s judgment overruling his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises two points on appeal. In Point I, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred because appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assert on direct appeal there was insufficient evidence to support Movant’s conviction for incest given no evidence was presented at trial to establish the existence of a legal marriage between Movant and Victim’s mother. In Point II, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred because appellate counsel failed to assert on direct appeal that the trial court erred in overruling Movant’s motion to suppress his statements to Deputy, and in overruling Movant’s objection at trial to Deputy’s testimony about those statements given Movant was subjected to custodial interrogation without being informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018), unless otherwise indicated.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not err. A written opinion would have no precedential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order under Rule 84.16(b)(2).