Case ID: sw3d_205/html/0325-02.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

Kipton PRELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. WD 65479.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    Nov. 14, 2006.
    Ruth B. Sanders, Appellate District Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
    
      Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Robert J. (Jeff) Bartholomew, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before HOWARD, C.J., and BRECKENRIDGE, and HARDWICK, JJ.
   Order

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 29.15. Appellant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike the charges of furnishing pornography to a minor and supplying liquor to a minor when he had already been charged with endangering the welfare of a child. He also claims that trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to relay the prosecution’s offer for a plea bargain, which he would have accepted.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).