DAVIS v. STATE (2024)

ORDER

Michael C. Davis (“Davis”) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Davis raises four points on appeal, all challenging the effectiveness of either his appellate counsel or trial counsel in relation to allegedly inconsistent and confusing verdicts returned by the jury on two counts of forcible sodomy, Counts III and IV. Points I and II challenge the failure of Davis's appellate counsel to raise claims on direct appeal that the trial court plainly erred in accepting and entering guilty verdicts on Counts III and IV, respectively, when the jury had returned supposedly inconsistent and confusing verdicts on those counts. Points III and IV challenge the failure of Davis's trial counsel to object to the allegedly inconsistent and confusing verdicts on Counts III and IV, respectively. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

PER CURIAM: