Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the motion court found: Movant’s counsel’s strategy was to resolve the Federal Charges before the State Court charges, so that any sentences on the State Court charges could be run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the Federal charges. Trial counsel believed that if Movant was first sentenced on the State Court charges, the subsequent federal sentences would almost certainly be run consecutive to the State Court sentences. Therefore, trial counsel’s trial strategy was to continue Movant’s State Court case [ ] to be resolved after the Federal Court case was resolved. It is not ineffective assistance of counsel to make a reasonable strategic decision designed to benefit a defendant in the sentencing proceedings. See, e.g., State v. Nunley, 923 S.W.2d 911, 923 (Mo. banc 1996) (<HOLDING>). Point denied. 2. Alleged Violation of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing because the trial record clearly indicated that the sentencing judge was aware of many of the mitigators that counsel was presenting to this court on appeal (B) holding that because appellant had waived review of constitutional challenge to sentencing statute by failing to raise it at the first opportunity the trial court correctly proceeded to examine whether the appellants trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise constitutional challenges to the sentencing statutes (C) holding it was reasonable trial strategy for counsel to have determined that sentencing by the court was preferable to sentencing by a jury (D) holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court (E) holding that constitution protected right to counsel at sentencing even where it was waived at trial
Output (English): holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court