Legal Opinion

DANIEL LEE PHERIGO, Movant-Respondent v. STATE OF MISSOURI

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 24, 2015No. SD33559Published

1Opinion of the CourtGary W. Lynch, J.

— Opinion author

The State of Missouri appeals the motion court’s judgment granting Daniel Lee Pherigo’s (“Movant”) Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief finding that IVEov-ant received ineffective assistance of counsel. The State claims the motion court clearly erred in finding Movant’s trial counsel was ineffective:' (1) for failing to request a continuance in response to the State’s late disclosure on the morning of trial of two recorded interviews of Mov-ant, a supplemental report pertaining to those interviews, and recorded interviews of three of Movant’s co-defendants, because…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Kyles v. WhitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Zink v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
  5. Charles K. Moore v. State of MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 2015

8 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