Case ID: sw3d_75/html/0746-01.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

David E. LUSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. WD 59354.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    March 5, 2002.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 30, 2002.
    Application for Transfer Denied June 25, 2002.
    Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andrew W. Hassell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before HOWARD, P.J., BRECKENRIDGE and NEWTON, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David E. Luster appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Mr. Luster claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel waived his right to a jury trial without his informed consent and, in fact, his trial counsel failed to advise him of his right to a jury trial. The evidence supports the motion court’s finding that Mr. Luster’s trial counsel advised Mr. Luster about his right to a jury trial and Mr. Luster knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived this right. Since a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).