Atkins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Atkins v. State

569 S.W.3d 563

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106662

StatusPublished

This text of 569 S.W.3d 563 (Atkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkins v. State, 569 S.W.3d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Charles D. Atkins ("Atkins") appeals the motion court's dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion based on the escape rule. In his sole point on appeal, Atkins argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying *564his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because the motion court erroneously applied the escape rule and Atkins raised post-escape error in his amended motion. Because Atkins absconded for over a year and because Atkins's claims that he is entitled to jail-time credit are not cognizable in a motion for post-conviction relief, Atkins fails to establish clear error.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Charles D. Atkins ("Atkins") appeals the motion court's dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion based on the escape rule. In his sole point on appeal, Atkins argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying *564his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because the motion court erroneously applied the escape rule and Atkins raised post-escape error in his amended motion. Because Atkins absconded for over a year and because Atkins's claims that he is entitled to jail-time credit are not cognizable in a motion for post-conviction relief, Atkins fails to establish clear error.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 S.W.3d 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkins-v-state-moctapp-2019.