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

Heading: Exclusion of evidence about Keith's father

Text: Storey claims appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court's ruling excluding evidence of Keith Storey's ongoing relationship with his biological father to highlight the difference between Tim's and Keith's lives because it was relevant mitigation. The trial court prohibited Storey's mother from testifying about how Storey's brother, Keith, had an ongoing positive relationship with his father. Keith has a different father, and Storey did not have this same positive influence. Appellate counsel testified: When I read the transcript I thought it was just minimal evidence about the kind of contact Keith had had with his father, and it really  it just didn't seem to me that it was a very strong point. The motion court held that counsel made a reasonable decision of appellate strategy to not raise that issue on appeal. Because counsel's decision not to appeal the trial court's ruling was trial strategy, it is not a ground for ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 109 (Mo. banc 1994).