Vaughn v. State

Full title: Darnell VAUGHN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Date published: Sep 1, 2020

605 S.W.3d 617 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)

Opinion

No. ED 108331

09-01-2020

Darnell VAUGHN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

FOR APPELLANT: Lisa M. Stroup, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101. FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

PER CURIAM.

FOR APPELLANT: Lisa M. Stroup, Missouri Public Defender's Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Philip M. Hess, J., and Michael E. Gardner, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Darnell Vaughn ("Movant") appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. A jury found Movant guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and two counts of armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced Movant as a prior offender to two consecutive life sentences in the Missouri Department of Corrections. This Court affirmed Movant's convictions and sentences on direct appeal in State v. Vaughn , 523 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

Movant timely filed a Rule 29.15 motion, which the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing. Movant brings three points on appeal. In his first point, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel failed to call an alibi witness. In his second point, Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims that trial counsel failed to move to dismiss his charges for violation of Movant's right to a speedy trial and appellate counsel failed to raise the speedy trial issue on direct appeal. In his third and final point, Movant asserts the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel failed to object to a lack of foundation for the State's admission of a videotaped interrogation as a prior inconsistent statement.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-conviction relief. A written opinion would have no precedential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(2).