WILSON v. STATE (2023)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Fentress M. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 85017

Decided: January 31, 2023

Before Division Two: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, and Lisa White Hardwick and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

Kathryn Merwald, Assistant Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant. Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, and Nathan J. Aquino, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Order

Fentress Wilson appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 ¹ motion for post-conviction relief. Wilson raises two points on appeal. First, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately cross-examine Victim's grandmother with alleged prior inconsistent statements. And, second, he argues that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately cross-examine Victim's grandmother and Victim's mother about the six-day delay between the event at issue and their report to law enforcement. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

FOOTNOTES

1. All rules references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2021), unless otherwise noted.

Per Curiam:

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network