Case ID: sw3d_564/html/0749-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Felix KEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 105767
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
    Filed: October 23, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 28, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 29, 2019
    FOR APPELLANT: Randall Brachman, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, Missouri 63101.
    FOR RESPONDENT: Robert J. Bartholomew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
    Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.
    ORDER
   PER CURIAM

Felix Key was convicted by a City of St. Louis jury of first-degree assault, armed criminal action, and unlawful use of a weapon arising out of the shooting of Shelton Buchanan. Key was sentenced to a total of twenty-eight years' imprisonment. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Key , 364 S.W.3d 575 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). Key now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Key raises four points on appeal. The first three points allege his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to: 1) properly impeach eyewitness Dominique Darden by introducing his alleged prior inconsistent deposition statement that the police told him to circle Key in the photographic lineup where Darden identified Key as the shooter; 2) investigate and call Key's brother, Terry Clark ("Brother"), as an additional witness to bolster Key's alibi that he was at home the night the crimes were committed; and 3) argue Key's age of nineteen at the time the crimes were committed as a mitigating factor at his sentencing. In his fourth point, Key contends that motion court erred in denying him a hearing on his claim of newly discovered evidence. Finding no clear error, we affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16.