Legal Opinion

Pargo v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 28, 2006No. 27375PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, Presiding Judge.

Robert Pargo (“Movant”) claims his appellate counsel was ineffective and failed to act as a reasonably competent attorney would under the same or similar circumstances in two ways. First, he claims his attorney should have appealed the denial of an objection to testimony that was purportedly hearsay and, second, he asserts the attorney should have appealed the denial of a motion to suppress the identification of him by a witness on the basis of the procedures used to obtain the witness’ identification. We find no error and affirm.

Movant was convicted by…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1994
  3. Wilson v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
  4. Moss v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2000
  5. State v. HornbuckleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1989

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State of Missouri v. Tawanda KunongaMissouri Court of Appeals · 2016
  2. State v. WatkinsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017
  3. Donald Henningfeld, Movant/Appellant v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Royer v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API