HAWKINS v. STATE (2021)

ORDER

Shallon Hawkins appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion. Hawkins argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying the motion because he established that his late trial counsel's performance during a detective's testimony at trial was ineffective because trial counsel failed to object to inadmissible hearsay testimony, failed to object to impermissible opinion testimony involving facts outside the witness's personal knowledge, elicited testimony that was contrary to the defense theory, and opened the door to the introduction of evidence that Hawkins exercised his right to remain silent during a police interview. Hawkins further claims that the motion court erred in denying his motion to amend the judgment because the motion court's factual findings were not specific enough to allow for meaningful review on appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per curiam: