ADAMS v. STATE (2022)

ORDER

James Kevin Adams (“Adams”) appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.¹ In his three points on appeal, Adams claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Specifically, Adams argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to witnesses’ testimony on various grounds. Adams also argues his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge Victim's testimony as irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence of uncharged conduct on direct appeal.² We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided an unpublished memorandum to the parties which sets forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

FOOTNOTES

1.   All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2022), except for references to Rule 29.15, which are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2017).

2.   Pursuant to section 595.226, RSMo, we do not use the name of the victim in this Order or Memorandum.

PER CURIAM: