JAK v. STATE (2024)

Order

Kodeng B. Jak appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his amended Rule 29.15 motion that followed his conviction and sentencing on charges of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. Jak's post-conviction motion raised two claims, only one of which is at issue in this appeal—that the motion court erred in finding that trial counsel was not ineffective and that Jak was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to investigate and present Jak's parents as mitigation witnesses during the penalty phase of trial.¹ Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

FOOTNOTES

1.   In his brief to this court, Jak alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present testimony from his parents at “sentencing.” Throughout the brief he uses the word “sentencing” to refer both to the penalty phase of the trial before the jury and the sentencing hearing before the judge. Therefore, it is somewhat unclear whether his allegation of ineffective assistance refers to counsel's performance during the penalty phase of trial or at the sentencing hearing. We believe the better reading of Jak's brief is that he is alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of the jury trial. This reading of his argument is consistent with the claim 8/9(b) made in his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence.

Per Curiam: