Legal Opinion

Tinsley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 8, 2008No. 28574PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GARY W. LYNCH, Chief Judge.

Eldon Tinsley (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He specifically argues that his trial counsels failed to act reasonably when they declined to call a witness Movant asserts would have provided him a defense to the underlying charge of first-degree murder. In a pro se supplemental brief, Movant further argues that the motion court erred in its cursory denial of three claims raised in Movant’s original pro se Rule 29.15 motion, but omitted from his amended motion. We affirm.

Fac…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Worthington v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  3. Moss v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2000
  4. State v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
  5. Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hardy v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. Harrison v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. McClanahan v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Steele v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2018
  5. JEFFREY D. JENDRO v. STATE OF MISSOURIMissouri Court of Appeals · 2023

2 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