JOHN E. THOMPSON, APPELLANT.
v.
JAMES PURKETT, STATE OF MISSOURI; APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding the appellant failed to meet the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.
John Thompson appealed the denial of his habeas corpus petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial attorney's failure to cal…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases and more on FLexlaw
STROM, Chief Judge.
John Thompson appeals the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in trial counsel’s failure to call certain witnesses. Thompson was convicted of burglary in Missouri state court based on eyewitness identification. The eyewitness identification was based partially upon missing teeth. Appellant asserts that the testimony of the witnesses could have established that he lost his teeth in a boating accident which occurred subsequent to the eyewitness identification.
To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must demonstrate that his counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). He must also show that the attorney’s deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. In order to make that showing, appellant must demonstrate that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of his trial would have been different. Id. Appellant has failed to meet this test.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that an opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 14.