Opinion ID: 1369544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: MAI-CR 3d 310.50 intoxication instruction

Text: Storey claims that counsel was ineffective in failing to object that Tim's guilt conviction was obtained when intoxication instruction MAI-CR3d 310.50 was given contrary to Erwin .  This claim is that counsel for the 1999 penalty retrial did not object, in 1999, that the instruction had been given in Storey's 1991 guilt phase. In the 1991 guilt phase, the jury was given the following instruction, based on MAI-CR 3d 310.50: In determining the defendant's guilt or innocence, you are instructed that an intoxicated or drugged condition whether from alcohol or drugs will not relieve a person of responsibility for his conduct. Two years later, this Court held MAI-CR 3d 310.50 violated due process, but limited the holding to cases tried in the future and cases then subject to direct appeal where the issue had been preserved. State v. Erwin, 848 S.W.2d 476, 484 (Mo. banc 1993). In Storey's first appeal, this Court held: Storey was tried before Erwin was decided, and concedes there was no trial objection nor any error alleged in the new trial motion. Thus, the claim was waived. Rule 28.03. Storey also claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the issue, even though he was tried before Erwin was decided. This argument is again rejected. See State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 106 (Mo. banc 1994). State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 897 (Mo. banc 1995). When asked why no objection to this was made during the retrial of the penalty phase, Counsel Beimdiek testified: I don't think we considered it. I think we probably should have raised that objection. Counsel Kenyon testified: It was an oversight on my part. I was focused on the penalty phase of this case. It was a penalty phase retrial and I wasn't looking for issues that pertained to reversing his guilt phase. The 29.15 motion court held, in 2004, The issue was raised in the 1993 PCR and movant was not successful. Trial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise an issue that was already raised without success. This issue has been litigated by Storey before and without success. Counsel is not deemed ineffective for declining to make a non-meritorious objection. State v. Six, 805 S.W.2d 159, 167 (Mo. banc 1991).