With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has failed to establish that Craig Perkins could have been located through reasonable investigation and effort and that he would have testified if called. Therefore, Movant has not established that his attorney failed to provide him reasonably effective assistance. The judgment of the motion court in Case No. 20872 is affirmed. 1 . All statutory references are to RSMo 1994. 2 . Co-defendant Keith Parker was also tried at the same time. 3 .Mr. Wright testified that he received a "free victim's paper to take [the bullet] out for free” but as of trial he had not undergone this procedure. 4 . See State v. Williams, 784 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Mo.App.1990)(finding three-inch laceration to the neck sufficient to constitute serious disfigurement); State v. Pettis, 748 S.W.2d 793, 794 (Mo.App.1988)(<HOLDING>). 5 . Movant refers to this individual in his

A: holding that hcv constitutes an objectively serious medical condition
B: holding that serious physical injury as applied to firstdegree assault would include a fourinch permanent scar as a result of a knife wound
C: holding that victims injuries went beyond serious injury necessary to indict for an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflict serious injury and constituted the permanent disfigurement contemplated by ncgs  14324
D: holding that permanent scar to the arm four inches by onesixteenth of an inch constitutes serious disfigurement
D.