Foster v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Foster v. State

284 S.W.3d 735, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 444, 2009 WL 983065

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 14, 2009

DocketED 92130

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 S.W.3d 735 (Foster 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

Foster v. State, 284 S.W.3d 735, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 444, 2009 WL 983065 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Daniel W. Foster (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Motion Requesting the Court to Redocket his Previous Filed Motion to Reopen to Inquire Into Its Jurisdiction to Address Abandonment Claims of Postconviction Counsel with Suggestions in Support and the judgment denying his Petitioner’s Independent Collateral Attack to Void This Court’s Judgment Due to Lack of Jurisdiction. Movant timely filed separate notices of appeal for each of the judgments. Because the motions and the judgments involved related claims and requested similar relief, this Court consolidated the appeals.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm both of the motion court’s judgments, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming 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.

Daniel W. Foster (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Motion Requesting the Court to Redocket his Previous Filed Motion to Reopen to Inquire Into Its Jurisdiction to Address Abandonment Claims of Postconviction Counsel with Suggestions in Support and the judgment denying his Petitioner’s Independent Collateral Attack to Void This Court’s Judgment Due to Lack of Jurisdiction. Movant timely filed separate notices of appeal for each of the judgments. Because the motions and the judgments involved related claims and requested similar relief, this Court consolidated the appeals.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm both of the motion court’s judgments, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.W.3d 735, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 444, 2009 WL 983065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack