Chalk v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chalk v. State

990 S.W.2d 87, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 212, 1999 WL 160855

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 1999

DocketNo. 74876

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 990 S.W.2d 87 (Chalk 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

Chalk v. State, 990 S.W.2d 87, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 212, 1999 WL 160855 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Chalk (Movant) was convicted of first degree murder, Section 565.020, RSMol994, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMol994, and sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole and thirty years, respectively. Movant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, but did not file an affidavit of indigency. He now appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion, arguing that the motion court erred in ruling on his pro se motion without appointing counsel for him and erred in denying his Rule 75.01 motion.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err. Where a movant files no affidavit of indigency with his Rule 29.15 motion, the motion court does not commit error by failing to appoint counsel to represent him. State v. Nichols, 865 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Mo. App. E.D.1993). No appeal is possible from the motion court’s refusal to exercise its discretion to set aside or amend its judgment under Rule 75.01. State v. Sielfleisch, 884 S.W.2d 422, 431 (Mo.App. E.D. 1994).

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Chalk (Movant) was convicted of first degree murder, Section 565.020, RSMol994, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMol994, and sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole and thirty years, respectively. Movant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, but did not file an affidavit of indigency. He now appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion, arguing that the motion court erred in ruling on his pro se motion without appointing counsel for him and erred in denying his Rule 75.01 motion.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err. Where a movant files no affidavit of indigency with his Rule 29.15 motion, the motion court does not commit error by failing to appoint counsel to represent him. State v. Nichols, 865 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Mo. App. E.D.1993). No appeal is possible from the motion court’s refusal to exercise its discretion to set aside or amend its judgment under Rule 75.01. State v. Sielfleisch, 884 S.W.2d 422, 431 (Mo.App. E.D. 1994).

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

990 S.W.2d 87, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 212, 1999 WL 160855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chalk-v-state-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack