Case ID: sw3d_108/html/0783-01.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

Kevin Ewing TUGGLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. WD 61482.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    June 30, 2003.
    Mark A. Grothoff, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Nicole E. Gorovsky, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
    Before HOWARD, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HARDWICK, JJ.
   Order

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Ewing Tuggle appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 postconviction motion. In his sole point on appeal, Tuggle contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel failed to object to numerous leading questions by the State during direct examination of its witnesses.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).