MARR v. STATE (2017)

Order

Sheena Marr appeals from the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after she was convicted by jury of first-degree trafficking and misdemeanor drug possession. She contends her trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the first-degree trafficking verdict director, and her appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support her enhanced sentence for that offense. Marr also argues her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a colloquy between the judge and a juror, and her appellate counsel was ineffective for not asserting that the court’s answer during that colloquy constituted plain error. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the judgment. Rule 84.16(b)

Per Curiam