{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"george-e-martin","displayName":"George E. Martin","totalCases":1},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84781:2022-10-11","opinionId":"7db06b8c-cc0f-5214-ae98-4c1f476a8aeb","slug":"george-e-martin-v-state-of-missouri-d84781","caseName":"George E. Martin\nvs. \nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD84781","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-10-11","year":2022,"display_summary":"George Martin appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a fact witness and for delivering an incompetent closing argument. The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy and did not constitute ineffective assistance under the Strickland test.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=189773","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/george-e-martin-v-state-of-missouri-d84781","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","evidence":["tag: criminal-law","topic: criminal-procedure","text: state of missouri","text: conviction"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","evidence":["topic: evidence","topic: appellate-procedure"],"url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"}]}