From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Jun 12, 2001
46 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. ED 78304

June 12, 2001

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Honorable Larry L. Kendrick.

Gwenda R. Robinson, Assistant Public Defender, 1221 Locust Street, Suite 350, St. Louis, Missouri 63103, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Lisa Sutherland, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, P.J., Mary Rhodes Russell, J., and Richard B. Teitelman, J.



ORDER

Michael Taylor ("Appellant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant's first point is that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor in rebuttal closing argument impermissibly invited the jury to place themselves in the situation of the victim and improperly argued victim impact. Appellant's second point is that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing argue that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion in limine to exclude "red herring" evidence of potential alternate perpetrators. We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal. The trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only, which explains the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Jun 12, 2001
46 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Taylor v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One

Date published: Jun 12, 2001

Citations

46 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)