Legal Opinion
Martin v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided November 20, 2012No. ED 96973PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSherri B. Sullivan, J.
Introduction
Kareem Martin (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15 (post-conviction motion).1 We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
In April 2008, the State charged Mov-ant, as a prior and persistent offender, with first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action. The evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is as follows.
On December 30, 2006, Movant and another…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Martinez v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Worthington v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
- Gehrke v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- William Dwayne Salter v. State of MississippiCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2015
- Jones v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017
- Sittner v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
- Bain v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
- DAVID C. MASON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-RespondentMissouri Court of Appeals · 2016
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.