Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 12 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 94839.,ED 94839. |
| Citation | 344 S.W.3d 217 |
| Parties | Leonard TAYLOR, Appellant,v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Supreme Court Denied May 24, 2011.
Application for Transfer
Denied Aug. 30, 2011.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Michael P. David, Judge.Jeannie M. Willibey, Assistant Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.Before GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
ORDER
Leonard Taylor (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo (2000), and was sentenced as a persistent sex offender to a term of one hundred years' imprisonment without parole. Movant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Taylor, 238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. banc 2007). Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises four points on appeal, bringing claims of ineffective assistance of defense counsel and appellate counsel, and challenging the motion court's ruling barring him from contacting jurors about alleged juror misconduct.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Steele
...v. Taylor , 238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. 2007) (summarizing underlying facts and affirming conviction on direct review); see also Taylor v. State , 344 S.W.3d 217 (Mo. App. 2011) (noting length of sentence and affirming denial of post-conviction relief). After multiple continuances were granted to T......
-
Speece v. Allied Professionals Ins. Co.
... ... Act, and therefore, the McCarranFerguson Act does not prevent the Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986 from being construed to preempt state law. 7. Constitutional Law: Federal Acts: States. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state law that conflicts with federal law is ... ...
-
Union Elec. Co. v. Energy Ins. Mut. Ltd., Case No. 4:10-CV-1153 (CEJ)
... ... In the Eighth Circuit, the analysis under Bremen must also include consideration of the public policy of the forum state. Id. (citing Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Frazier-Parrott Commodities, Inc., 806 F.2d 848, 852 (8th Cir. 1986)). "A contractual choice-of-forum ... ...
-
Leonberger v. Mo. United Sch. Ins. Council
... ... Sturgeon v. Allied Professionals Ins. Co., 344 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). The interpretation of a contract is a question of law. State v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 340 S.W.3d 161, 182 (Mo.App.W.D.2011). The primary rule in interpreting a contract is to ascertain the parties' intent ... ...