Chambers v. State

I respectfully dissent.

My view on the approach to cases such as this is stated in my dissent in Stewart v. State, 771 S.W.2d 886, 888 (Mo.App.1989). As an appellate court, we can and should go directly to the issue of prejudice. Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 700, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2071, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); O’Neal v. State, 766 S.W.2d 91 (Mo. banc 1989); and Sanders v. State 738 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. banc 1987)). In a case such as this, an evidentiary hearing is of marginal or no use in helping us make that determination.

In fact, I believe this to be a stronger case for…