Legal Opinion

Wenzel v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 27, 2006No. 26938PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Barnett v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2003
  2. Storey v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  3. State v. RedmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1996
  4. State v. DoddMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Carroll v. AAA Bail BondsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Reginald Taylor v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
  2. Gooch v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
  3. WILLIE D. CLARK v. STATE OF MISSOURIMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API