Opinion
No. ED 108464
12-08-2020
Jonathan R. RICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT: Maleaner R. Harvey, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. FOR RESPONDENT: Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT: Maleaner R. Harvey, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT: Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Philip M. Hess, J., and Michael E. Gardner, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Jonathan R. Rice ("Movant") appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. A jury found Movant guilty of three counts of second-degree domestic assault, one count of first-degree rape, one count of felony kidnapping, and one count of armed criminal action. The jury recommended Movant be sentenced to seven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC") on each of the three counts of second-degree domestic assault and fifteen years in the DOC on the counts of first-degree rape, felony kidnapping, and armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced Movant according to the jury's recommendation, with all sentences except the count of first-degree rape running concurrently for a total of thirty years in the DOC. This Court affirmed Movant's convictions and sentences on direct appeal in State v. Rice , 559 S.W.3d 115 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).
Movant timely filed a Rule 29.15 motion alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing. Movant brings four points on appeal. In his first and second points, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims that trial counsel failed to object to the testimony of two State witnesses on the ground of hearsay and request a mistrial. In his third point, Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel failed to cross-examine A.C. regarding whether she and Movant usually had consensual make-up sex after arguments. In his final point, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel failed to recommend a sentence to the jury during the penalty phase.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. 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 our decision.
We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(2).