DUMAS v. STATE (2024)

Order

Michael Dumas appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion. Dumas raises two points on appeal: (1) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise a claim on direct appeal that the trial court erred in overruling his Batson ¹ challenge to the State's peremptory strike of venireperson 15 and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to proffer a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Because both appellate and trial counsels’ decisions were based on reasonable strategy, we find no error and affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

Per Curiam: