Legal Opinion

Pittman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 22, 2011No. WD 72020PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, Judge.

Jeffrey Pittman appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Pittman contends the motion court erred because: (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when plea counsel unreasonably advised Pittman that the State’s video surveillance tape was more inculpatory when viewed on a large screen; (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when plea counsel unreasonably failed to present evidence at sentencing that Pittman used prescription drugs in addition to selling drugs; and (3) the trial court entered…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Worthington v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  4. State v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
  5. State v. RollSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Whitehead v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2016
  2. Smith v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Isla Ballard v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. Richard Long v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. Romell Bates v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API