Legal Opinion

Barker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 25, 2002No. 24620PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

KENNETH W. SHRUM, Judge.

Randall Barker (“Movant”) appeals a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief from his convictions for forcible rape (§ 566.030), forcible sodomy (§ 566.060), and second degree assault (§ 565.060).1 Movant alleges the motion court erred in denying his motion because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a witness that would have provided an alibi. Movant also alleges this failure to investigate forced him to take the stand and testify in his own behalf. The court did not err in denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. State v. ClaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1998
  3. State v. TwenterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
  4. Franklin v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2000
  5. Bright v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Bell v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API