Teaster v. State, 22485
| Decision Date | 11 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 22485,22485 |
| Citation | 986 S.W.2d 175 |
| Parties | Michael T. TEASTER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Cinda J. Eichler, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kenneth P. Ferguson, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.
Before PREWITT, P.J., and CROW and PARRISH, JJ.
Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced as a prior and persistent offender, to ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Appellant filed an amended post-conviction motion seeking relief under Rule 29.15, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The hearing court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
In his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues that the hearing court clearly erred in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing. Appellant alleges that since no other testimony was presented by the defense at trial, an evidentiary hearing should have been held to show that evidence could have come in and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the testimony of certain witnesses.
Appellant first claims he could have shown that he was not intoxicated by presentation of the testimony of his passenger, Lowell Mason. Appellant had admitted to the arresting officers that he had consumed nine beers over a period of some five hours' time while he and Mason were fishing. Appellant further claims trial counsel made no attempt to interview this witness.
Appellant next states that since there was no evidence presented of any breath test, the testimony of an expert witness was needed. He contends that the medical effects of alcohol on a man of Appellant's weight and stature could best be explained by the professional opinion of a medical doctor. See State v. Hanson, 493 S.W.2d 8, 12 (Mo.App.1973). The metabolism of alcohol is "a subject not normally within the bounds of a juror's knowledge." State v. Middaugh, 802 S.W.2d 570, 573 (Mo.App.1991). The hearing court concluded that the jury could use their own common sense to know what effect nine beers would have on Appellant over a five-hour period of time.
Appellant then complains about counsel's statement in closing argument that Defendant was "sobering up" when arrested. Appellant contends this tacit admission of guilt was untrue and persuaded the jury that Appellant had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnett v. Roper
...cited cases, the state agreed with the movant that the matters should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing. See Teaster v. State, 986 S.W.2d 175, 175-76 (Mo.Ct.App. 1999); Webster v. State, 837 S.W.2d 585, 587-88 (Mo.Ct.App.1992) (pleading requirements satisfied, and the circuit court fun......
-
Teaster v. State
...taken, and this court reversed and remanded to the circuit court with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Teaster v. State, 986 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Mo.App. 1999). The motion court concluded Movant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. This appeal followed. We In his only po......