Opinion
No. ED 109268
11-09-2021
Anthony R. VILLEME, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
FOR APPELLANT: Karen L. Kramer, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101. FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
FOR APPELLANT: Karen L. Kramer, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
FOR RESPONDENT: Daniel N. McPherson, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Kelly C. Broniec, J. and John P. Torbitzky, J.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Anthony Villeme ("Movant") appeals the motion court's order denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, finding that Movant failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his trial counsel was ineffective. Movant brings three points on appeal, each arguing that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to investigate the distances involved in the incident leading to the charges, (2) failing to impeach the victim, and (3) failing to object to allegedly improper character evidence.
A written opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. We have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the order of the motion court under 84.16(b).