From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jan 31, 2023
659 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)

Opinion

WD 85017

01-31-2023

Fentress M. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Kathryn Merwald, Assistant Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, and Nathan J. Aquino, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.


Kathryn Merwald, Assistant Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, and Nathan J. Aquino, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, and Lisa White Hardwick and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

Order

Per Curiam: Fentress Wilson appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Wilson raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately cross-examine Victim's grandmother with alleged prior inconsistent statements. And, second, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately cross-examine Victim's grandmother and Victim's mother about the six-day delay between the event at issue and their report to law enforcement. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

All rules references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2021), unless otherwise noted.


Summaries of

Wilson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Jan 31, 2023
659 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)
Case details for

Wilson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Fentress M. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Date published: Jan 31, 2023

Citations

659 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)