Legal Opinion

Cage v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 24, 1978No. 39638PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GUNN, Judge.

In this Rule 27.26 appeal, movant claims ineffective assistance of counsel by reason of his trial attorney’s failure to call and investigate alibi witnesses. We find no merit to movant’s contentions and affirm the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion.

Movant was convicted of armed robbery. He claims that his trial counsel failed to interview three prospective alibi witnesses or put them on the stand; that he was thereby deprived of effective assistance of counsel. Movant’s contentions were completely refuted by his trial counsel at the Rule 27.26 hearing. And, of course, it is the trial…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
  2. Jackson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Williams v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. State v. CageMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
  5. Taylor v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Sweazea v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979
  2. Perry v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. Mountjoy v. JonesDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1989
  4. Smothers v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Barker v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API