ANDERSON v. STATE (2023)

ORDER

Richard Anderson appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In his first point on appeal he contends the motion court clearly erred in denying claim 8/9(a) of Anderson's Rule 29.15 amended motion when the court found Anderson did not receive ineffective assistance from Counsel's failure to successfully object to Mother's testimony of L.W.’s hearsay statement. Anderson argues the court would have sustained an adequate objection and Anderson was prejudiced by Counsel's deficiency because there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome at either the guilt or penalty phase of Anderson's jury trial. In his second point on appeal, Anderson contends the motion court clearly erred in denying claim 8/9(b) of his Rule 29.15 amended motion when it found Anderson did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel from Counsel's failure to object to testimony about the collection of an oral swab from L.W. Anderson argues that an objection that the evidence was uncharged misconduct would have been meritorious and Anderson was prejudiced because, had the statement been excluded, there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome at either the guilt or penalty phase of Anderson's jury trial. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam: