Costa v. State, WD 60660.
| Decision Date | 01 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 60660.,WD 60660. |
| Parties | Bernardo COSTA, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Carroll County, Missouri, Werner A. Moentmann, Judge.
Arthur Allen, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joel A. Block, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before ULRICH, P.J., and SPINDEN and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.
Bernardo O. Costa appeals from the circuit court's order overruling, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, the appellant was convicted of one count of statutory rape in the first degree, § 566.032, for which he was sentenced as a predatory sexual offender, § 558.018, to life imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections without the possibility of parole for thirty years.
The appellant raises four points on appeal. In Point I, he claims that the motion court clearly erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because the evidence established that counsel was deficient in failing to challenge on direct appeal the trial court's admission of expert medical testimony that the victim had been sexually assaulted. In Points he claims that the motion court clearly erred in overruling his Rule 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of trial counsel because the evidence established that his counsel was deficient for: (1) failing to present "evidence of emotional and physical abuse of the Costa children" while they were in foster care; (2) failing to request a Frye hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony that the behavioral indicators displayed by the victim were consistent with victims of sexual abuse; and (3) failing to "correct" alleged perjured testimony. In Point IV, the appellant also claims that his right to due process of law was violated in that the State knowingly used false testimony to convict him of the charged offense.
Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
COSTA v. ALLEN, WD 71055.
...The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Id. Costa filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. See Costa v. State, 85 S.W.3d 758 (Mo.App.2002). The denial of that motion was affirmed. Id. Thereafter, Costa brought a civil action for legal malpractice against Arthur E. Allen, t......
-
In re L.E.C.
...(2000), as was the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his subsequent motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, Costa v. State, 85 S.W.3d 758 (Mo.App. W.D.2002). Therefore, the Children's Division proved all of the statutory grounds for termination of Father's parental rights......
- Griffis v. State, WD 60168.