Legal Opinion

Branson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 30, 2004No. 25869PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, Judge.

Albert R. Branson (“Appellant”) seeks relief from the denial of his Rule 24.0351 motion; he claims his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him that he had a statute of limitations defense to both of the original charges of forcible rape and the amended charges of incest. We affirm.

We review the motion court’s decision to determine if the judgment is clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); Moss v. State, 10 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Mo. banc 2000). A judgment will be found clearly erroneous if, upon review of the entire record, the appellate court is left with…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Moss v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2000
  2. Longhibler v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992
  3. Holland v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. Sage v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rush v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  2. Jerome Curry v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. Daniel C. Harmon, Movant/Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2020
  4. ROBERT DAVID NELSON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-RespondentMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API