Legal Opinion

Hill v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 26, 2013No. SD 32384PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMary W. Sheffield, J.

Louis William Hill (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule *91924.0351 motion for post-conviction relief. He argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that Lashon Rhodes, the attorney who represented Movant during the underlying criminal proceedings (“plea counsel”), was ineffective for failing to object to a misstatement of fact the prosecutor made while reciting the factual basis for the guilty plea. We disagree because Movant failed to prove the prejudice necessary to succeed on his claim. Consequently, we affirm the motion court’s judgment.

Standard of Review

Appe…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Missouri v. FryeSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  5. Dorris v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Perkins v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2018
  2. Benedict v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2018

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

Powered by the Exa API