BARBEE v. STATE (2023)

ORDER

Andrew Barbee appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In his sole point on appeal, Barbee contends the motion court clearly erred when it found trial counsel was not ineffective because he engaged in the cross-examination and questioning that the claim alleged he failed to do, arguing that the motion court must assess a claim under a correct understanding of the facts as they relate to the claim raised, and the motion court's Judgment demonstrates it misunderstood the facts of the case in relation to the claim, which infected both its determination of effective performance and of no prejudice, rendering them clearly erroneous, and the claim is sufficient as a matter of law. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam: