Case Name: Sean A. PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2018-06-12
Citations: 548 S.W.3d 922
Docket Number: WD 80752
Parties: Sean A. PRICE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 548
Pages: 922–923

Head Matter:
Sean A. PRICE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
WD 80752
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Filed: June 12, 2018
Samuel E. Buffaloe, Columbia for appellant.
Danilel N. McPherson, Jefferson City for respondent.
Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., JJ.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Appellant Sean Price was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree. After Price's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, see State v. Price , 433 S.W.3d 472 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014), he filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing, and Price appealed. On appeal, we held that the amended post-conviction relief motion filed by Price's appointed counsel was untimely, and that the circuit court was accordingly required to conduct an inquiry to determine whether Price had been abandoned by his appointed counsel. Price v. State , 500 S.W.3d 324, 326-27 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). On remand, the circuit court found that appointed counsel had abandoned Price, and that it was therefore appropriate to consider the allegations in Price's amended motion on the merits, as if the motion had been timely filed. The circuit court then reentered its judgment denying Price post-conviction relief. Price once again appeals. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective when counsel failed to clarify during closing argument that the jury could consider certain discrepancies in the child-victim's account of Price's sexual acts in assessing the credibility of her testimony. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b)