BOYD v. STATE (2023)

ORDER

Ramon Boyd appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Boyd contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to argue the concept of imperfect self-defense; (2) failing to object to testimony that suggested Boyd did not give officers the password to his phone; (3) failing to cross-examine the medical examiner about the compounding effect of a victim's injuries; and (4) failing to object to the trial court's improper enhancement of sentences based upon Boyd's exercise of his constitutional rights. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per curiam: