Crandall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Crandall v. State

992 S.W.2d 345, 1999 WL 323327

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 1999

DocketNo. 22220

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 992 S.W.2d 345 (Crandall 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

Crandall v. State, 992 S.W.2d 345, 1999 WL 323327 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a pleading under Section 547.860, RSMo Supp.1997, seeking various relief pertaining to convictions of two counts of sodomy. Previous to the filing of this action, this Court had affirmed those convictions and affirmed the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion seeking to vacate the convictions.

In Schleeper v. State, 982 S.W.2d 252 (Mo.banc 1998), the Missouri Supreme Court held that Section 547.360 did not create a second and independent action, and if a previous post-conviction motion had been litigated, a valid post-conviction motion could not proceed under that statute. Schleeper is controlling on this Court, see Mo. Const, art. V, section 2, and requires affirmance of the trial court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’s claim.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed a pleading under Section 547.860, RSMo Supp.1997, seeking various relief pertaining to convictions of two counts of sodomy. Previous to the filing of this action, this Court had affirmed those convictions and affirmed the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion seeking to vacate the convictions.

In Schleeper v. State, 982 S.W.2d 252 (Mo.banc 1998), the Missouri Supreme Court held that Section 547.360 did not create a second and independent action, and if a previous post-conviction motion had been litigated, a valid post-conviction motion could not proceed under that statute. Schleeper is controlling on this Court, see Mo. Const, art. V, section 2, and requires affirmance of the trial court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’s claim.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

992 S.W.2d 345, 1999 WL 323327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crandall-v-state-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack