City of Kansas v. Roach

Missouri Court of Appeals

City of Kansas v. Roach

794 S.W.2d 715, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1322, 1990 WL 123898

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 28, 1990

DocketNos. WD 42662, WD 42663

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 794 S.W.2d 715 (City of Kansas v. Roach) 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

City of Kansas v. Roach, 794 S.W.2d 715, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1322, 1990 WL 123898 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Thomas E. Roach filed two appeals from circuit court convictions of violations of Kansas City Traffic Ordinances. The appellant supplied this court with legal files in both cases, and then made a motion in each case captioned “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under the provisions of due process of law.” These motions were overruled. The appeals then were consolidated on appellant’s motion. No transcripts have been filed.

During the time that these appeals were pending, appellant filed another, separate “Petition for Habeas Corpus”, which complied with the provisions of Rule 91. That Petition was denied by order of this court. Roach v. Iannone, WD #43347 (May 11, 1990) (unpublished). The “brief” which appellant has filed in this case is merely a photocopy of that petition. It contains no jurisdictional statement, no statement of facts, no point relied on, and no argument advancing any intelligible claim of error. Compare Thomas v. State, 774 S.W.2d 573 (Mo.App.1989). Presentment of this appeal completely violates Rules 30.06 and 30.-04(c). There is nothing for this court to review.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Thomas E. Roach filed two appeals from circuit court convictions of violations of Kansas City Traffic Ordinances. The appellant supplied this court with legal files in both cases, and then made a motion in each case captioned “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under the provisions of due process of law.” These motions were overruled. The appeals then were consolidated on appellant’s motion. No transcripts have been filed.

During the time that these appeals were pending, appellant filed another, separate “Petition for Habeas Corpus”, which complied with the provisions of Rule 91. That Petition was denied by order of this court. Roach v. Iannone, WD #43347 (May 11, 1990) (unpublished). The “brief” which appellant has filed in this case is merely a photocopy of that petition. It contains no jurisdictional statement, no statement of facts, no point relied on, and no argument advancing any intelligible claim of error. Compare Thomas v. State, 774 S.W.2d 573 (Mo.App.1989). Presentment of this appeal completely violates Rules 30.06 and 30.-04(c). There is nothing for this court to review.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

794 S.W.2d 715, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1322, 1990 WL 123898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-kansas-v-roach-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack