Legal Opinion

Fred Hudson, Movant/Appellant v. State of Missouri

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 15, 2016No. ED102907PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPhilip M. Hess, Presiding Judge

Introduction

Fred Hudson (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In two points on appeal, -Movant’ contends that the motion court clearly erred by denying his motion because (1) trial counsel was ineffective, and (2) appellate counsel was ineffective. Specifically, in Point I, Movant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing, to elicit evidence (a) of a similar shooting at a neighboring house and (b) that another person was implicated in the shooting. In Point II,. Movant contends that appellate counsel was…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. McLaughlin v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
  3. McIntosh v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2013
  4. Bradley v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  5. Matthews v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Christopher J. Potter v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2023
  2. Kavion L. Thomas v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2023
  3. Mark C. Brandolese v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API