Duvall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Duvall v. State

201 S.W.3d 67, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 2006 WL 2597951

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 12, 2006

DocketED 86890

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 S.W.3d 67 (Duvall 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

Duvall v. State, 201 S.W.3d 67, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 2006 WL 2597951 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John C. Duvall (Movant) appeals from the denial, following an evidentiary hear *68 ing, of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 29.15. The convictions sought to be vacated were for three counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.062, RSMo 2000, for which Movant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion because he was abandoned by post-conviction counsel. Movant also argues the motion court erred in proceeding with an evidentiary hearing with John Lynch (Lynch) representing Movant because Movant had fired Lynch as his private counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

John C. Duvall (Movant) appeals from the denial, following an evidentiary hear *68 ing, of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 29.15. The convictions sought to be vacated were for three counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.062, RSMo 2000, for which Movant was sentenced to three consecutive terms of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion because he was abandoned by post-conviction counsel. Movant also argues the motion court erred in proceeding with an evidentiary hearing with John Lynch (Lynch) representing Movant because Movant had fired Lynch as his private counsel. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 S.W.3d 67, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 2006 WL 2597951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duvall-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack