Thigpen v. State

• Decision Date: 16 August 2022
• Docket Number: ED 109903
• Citation: 649 S.W.3d 396 (Mem)
• Parties: Roderick L. THIGPEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

649 S.W.3d 396 (Mem)

Roderick L. THIGPEN, Appellant,

v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 109903

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: August 16, 2022

FOR APPELLANT: John S. Appelbaum, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Kelly C. Broniec, P.J., Philip M. Hess, J., and James M. Dowd, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Roderick Thigpen ("Movant") appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises two Points on appeal. In Point I, Movant argues his trial counsel was ineffective because trial counsel introduced evidence unfavorable to Movant's case while cross-examining the victim. In Point II, Movant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an improper question the prosecutor asked Movant on cross-examination that prompted Movant to open the door for the jury to hear about prior arrests.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. A written opinion would have no precedential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(2).