Legal Opinion

Hickey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 6, 2010No. ED 93397PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Judge.

The movant, Pietro Hickey, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The movant claims that trial counsel was ineffective, first — for laboring under an actual conflict of interest, and second— for inducing the movant’s unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary waiver of his right to testify. We affirm the motion court’s determination, without an eviden-tiary hearing, that counsel did not labor under an actual conflict of interest and thus was not ineffective. We hold, however, that the motion court clearly…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Cuyler v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Worthington v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  4. Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  5. United States v. Bruce Ernest BernloehrCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1987

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Phillip G. Payne v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2016
  2. Polk v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017
  3. Cummings v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Frazier v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. Jerome Curry v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2014

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

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

Powered by the Exa API