BROADUS v. STATE (2018)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Andre M. BROADUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80703

Decided: May 29, 2018

Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

Jeannie Willibey, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant. Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Dora A. Fichter, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Order

Andre Broadus appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Broadus argues that the motion court erred in denying his motion because the evidence established that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to call Broadus’s brother as a witness at trial to testify that the tattoo on Broadus’s hand was present on the day of the charged crimes, thus further supporting the defense theory of misidentification presented at trial. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam:

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law