TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tatum v. State

Jon A. TATUM, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent

Tatum v. State, 693 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 1, 1985
Docket
No. 14066
Judges
Prewitt, Hogan, Maus, Crow
Citations
693 S.W.2d 9031985 Mo. App. LEXIS 4404
Cited by 29

Opinion — Prewitt

PREWITT, Chief Judge.

Movant was convicted of assault in the first degree and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. That conviction was affirmed on appeal. See State v. Tatum, 653 S.W.2d 241 (Mo.App.1983). Movant filed a motion under Rule 27.26 seeking to vacate the conviction because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing the trial court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment denying the motion. Movant appeals.

To sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel movant must establish that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different; a reasonable probability being a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.

Rainwater v. State, 676 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Mo.App.1984).

Movant has the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 27.26(f). Our review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions and judgment are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).

Testimony of his trial attorney refuted movant’s contentions. Assessing the credibility of the witnesses was for the trial court.

Trimble v. State, 588 S.W.2d 168, 170 (Mo.App.1979). The judgment of the trial court was based on findings of fact which were not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. A further opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

HOGAN, P.J., and MAUS and CROW, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1986: 51987: 21988: 11989: 41990: 51992: 11993: 11994: 31995: 51996: 219862026peak 1986 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Ayers911 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)
  2. Haslip v. State717 S.W.2d 533 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)
  3. State v. Richard798 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)
  4. State v. Madewell904 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)
  5. State v. Knight920 S.W.2d 612 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)
  6. Caraker v. State712 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

Most recent

  1. State v. Knight920 S.W.2d 612 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)
  2. State v. Enloe914 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)
  3. State v. Ayers911 S.W.2d 648 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)
  4. State v. Easley909 S.W.2d 376 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)
  5. State v. Madewell904 S.W.2d 66 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)
  6. State v. Sonka893 S.W.2d 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Trimble v. State, 588 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979) 26
State v. Tatum, 653 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983) 12
Rainwater v. State, 676 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list