Wenzel v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
KENNETH W. SHRUM, Presiding Judge.
Gary Wenzel (“Movant”) sought post-conviction relief via a Rule 29.15 motion after he was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine (§ 195.211.1). 1 After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Wenzel, 119 S.W.3d 650 (Mo.App.2003), Movant timely filed a pro se motion per Rule 29.15 to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment and sentence.
Court-appointed counsel then filed an amended motion, charging Movant’s trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance. The motion court denied Movant’s claims following an evidentiary hearing. Movant…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Barnett v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
- Storey v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
- State v. RedmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1996
- State v. DoddMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
- Carroll v. AAA Bail BondsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Reginald Taylor v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
- Gooch v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
- WILLIE D. CLARK v. STATE OF MISSOURIMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024