State v. Phillips
State v. Phillips
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Defendant, Willie Phillips, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a
On appeal, Defendant asserts the trial court plainly erred in allowing the prosecuting attorney to comment on Defendant’s failure to testify and post-arrest silence. We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears.
Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. In this regard, Defendant alleges the motion court erred in not finding Defendant’s trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the prosecuting attorney’s references to Defendant’s failure to testify at trial.
Our review of the motion court’s ruling is limited to a determination of whether the motion court’s findings, conclusions and judgment are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Moore v. State, 827 S.W.2d 213, 215 (Mo. banc 1992). We find the trial court’s findings of fact on Defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion are not clearly erroneous.
Regarding these judgments, an extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. Judgments affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.