Bird v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bird v. State

999 S.W.2d 731, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1033

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 3, 1999

DocketNo. 75738

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 999 S.W.2d 731 (Bird 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

Bird v. State, 999 S.W.2d 731, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1033 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, Judge.

Movant, Benjamin Bird, appeals from the motion court’s order dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court found that Mov-ant’s Rule 29.15 motion was prematurely filed because his direct appeal was still pending. Movant concedes the motion was filed early but argues this is not grounds for dismissal of his motion. The State agrees and joins with Movant to request the matter be reversed and remanded to the trial court. We reverse and remand.

This case is controlled by our recent decision in Nolan v. State, 959 S.W.2d 939 (Mo.App. E.D.1998), where the motion court had dismissed a Rule 29.15 motion because it was filed while the direct appeal was still pending. We reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the motion, holding, “Prematurity of filing a motion for post-conviction relief is not by itself a ground for dismissal.” Id. at 940. We find no difference between Nolan and the case at hand.

Accordingly, the order of the motion court is reversed and the cause is remanded for the motion court to reinstate Mov-ant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

RHODES RUSSELL, C.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., concur.

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