Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008

Miller v. State

Miller v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided September 16, 2008 · Baker, Mooney, Romines
263 S.W.3d 779; 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1264; 2008 WL 4206242 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Miller v. State

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Daniel Miller appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable John F. Garvey presiding. Miller was convicted by a jury of statutory rape in the first degree and child molestation. Miller was sentenced to concurrent sentences of thirty and fifteen years for the crimes. Miller then appealed his conviction claiming insufficient evidence, his conviction was affirmed. State v. Miller, 171 S.W.3d 115 (Mo.App.E.D. 2005). Miller filed a timely motion for post conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied.

Miller first claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion claim that the trial court violated his rights to appear and defend, due process, and a fair trial because his trial was commenced in his absence. Second, Miller claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion claim of ineffective appellate counsel because his counsel failed to raise a claim on direct appeal challenging the trial court’s commencement of his trial in his absence. Finally, Miller claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion claim of inef- *780 feetive trial counsel for failing to secure his presence at trial and giving bad advice regarding the necessity of his appearance at trial.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal, and no error of law appears. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.