CRIDER v. STATE (2021)

Order

Eric Crider appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Crider raises a single point on appeal; he argues that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion because the record demonstrates that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object to the admission of propensity evidence at Crider's bench trial on the ground that admission of the evidence was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution insofar as admission violated his right to be free from double jeopardy. Crider claims that he was prejudiced because trial counsel's failure to object deprived Crider of appellate review of the issue. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam: