OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph N. Portell, Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Joseph N. Portell
Respondent
State of Missouri

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph N. Portell, Appellant. Case Number: 73326 Handdown Date: 10/06/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Washington County, Hon. Kenneth Pratte Counsel for Appellant: Brunson Hollingsworth Counsel for Respondent: Shaun J. Mackelprang Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Gaertner, P.J., Hoff and J. Dowd, JJ., concur. Opinion: O R D E R Joseph N. Portell (Defendant) appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of production of a controlled substance, Section 195.211 RSMo 1994. In this direct appeal, Defendant seeks plain error review of a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective. Defendant cannot raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a direct appeal. State v. Kezer, 918 S.W.2d 874, 877 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). Rather, Rule 29.15 provides the "exclusive procedure" by which Defendant may seek relief on this claim. Rule 29.15(a). Therefore, we do not review Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In his other points, Defendant raises several evidentiary issues that are subject to plain error review only. "Plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom." Rule 29.12(b). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and find no manifest injustice or

miscarriage of justice regarding the points subject to plain error review. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.