Curtis Bradley appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Bradley argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in: (1) failing to renew a request to strike hearsay testimony; (2) eliciting testimony from the investigating officer that he had obtained information about Bradley from the police department's record management system; and (3) failing to object when the investigating officer testified that he terminated the interview with Bradley after Bradley invoked his right to remain silent. Finding no error of law, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Bradley v. State, 539 S.W.3d 778 (2017)
Oct. 31, 2017
·
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
·
WD 79739
539 S.W.3d 778
Curtis D. BRADLEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
WD 79739
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
ORDER FILED: October 31, 2017
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 14, 2017
S. Kathleen (Kate) Webber, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.
Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, and Gregory L. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.
Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, and James Edward Welsh and Karen King Mitchell, Judges
Order