Case ID: sw3d_75/html/0745-01.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

Patrick Winzell STARR, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. WD 58995.
    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.
    
      John M. Sehilmoeler, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Anne E. Edgington, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before HOWARD, P.J., BRECKENRIDGE and NEWTON, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Starr appeals the denial of his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Mr. Starr asserts that the motion court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 29.15®. Alternatively, Mr. Starr claims that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because (1) his counsel’s request that he accompany investigators to identify a witness was used against him at trial when the State argued an inference of guilt based on an attempt at this meeting to get the witness to change his testimony; and (2) his counsel did not request a conventional second degree murder instruction so that he could submit the defense of self-defense to the jury. This court finds that the record is sufficient to provide meaningful appellate review, and that Mr. Starr’s trial counsel was not ineffective. 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).