RUSSELL v. STATE (2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Cedrick O. RUSSELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 87633

Decided: June 16, 2026

Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, Thomas N. Chapman, Judge, and W. Douglas Thomson, Judge

Gregory Barnes, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent. Desiree Walden-Chastain, Kansas City, MO, for appellant. Kathryn Merwald, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

ORDER

Cedrick O. Russell (“Russell”) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Russell raises three points on appeal. He claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because trial counsel was ineffective for: failing to hire, consult with, and call a strangulation expert to testify (Point I); failing to object to the first-degree sodomy verdict director or submit their own verdict director (Point II); and failing to cross-examine a case detective with “other [blocked] calls in Mr. Russell's phone records” (Point III). Finding no error, 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 Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum which sets forth the reasons for this order.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:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network