RANSOM v. STATE (2023)

ORDER

Monique Ransom appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. She asserts three points on appeal. Ransom contends the motion court clearly erred, 1) in denying Claim 8(a) of her Rule 29.15 motion, arguing trial counsel improperly advised Ransom not to testify, and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's improper advice, Ransom would not have been convicted; 2) in denying Claim 8(b) of her Rule 29.15 motion, arguing trial counsel was ineffective in failing to sufficiently cross-examine the State's main witness about his inconsistent statements to police, and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failure to do so, Ransom would not have been convicted; and 3) in denying Claim 8(d) of her Rule 29.15 motion, arguing that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the relevance and admissibility of the State's witness's testimony regarding DNA analysis which lacked probative value and misled and confused the jurors, and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failure to object to the DNA evidence, Ransom would not have been convicted. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam: