Harkins v. Mitchell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harkins v. Mitchell

911 S.W.2d 689, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 2029, 1995 WL 731587

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 12, 1995

DocketNo. 68312

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 911 S.W.2d 689 (Harkins v. Mitchell) 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

Harkins v. Mitchell, 911 S.W.2d 689, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 2029, 1995 WL 731587 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

KAROHL, Judge.

Harkins appeals the “dismissal” of his application for writ of mandamus. He was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in May, 1973. The Board of Probation and Parole (Board) granted him parole on July 20, 1984. His parole was revoked on January 8, 1993, because he unlawfully possessed a firearm. He was given another parole hearing November, 1993. The Board denied parole due to the nature and severity of the second degree murder offense and his conduct in possessing a firearm. The Board scheduled another parole hearing for November 1995.

After the November 1993 hearing, Harkins discovered his step-daughter wrote a letter to the Board asking to deny him parole. He requested the Board “expunge” the letter from his file and give him a new hearing. The Board denied his request. Harkins then filed an application for a writ of mandamus with the Circuit Court of St. Francois County. The purpose of the application for the writ was to obtain an order that the letter be [690]*690“expunged” from Ms file and that a new parole hearing be held. The court dismissed the application for writ of mandamus because Harkins failed (1) to state grounds for relief and (2) to demonstrate that the denial of parole adversely prejudiced him.

No appeal lies from a dismissal of a petition or application of a writ of mandamus because no alternative writ was issued. Guille v. City of Fredericktown, 679 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Mo.App.1984). Harkins’ remedy is a direct application for writ of mandamus to a higher court. State ex rel. Johnson v. Personnel Advisory Board of State of Missouri, 836 S.W.2d 519 (Mo.App.E.D.1992).

Appeal dismissed.

REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

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

KAROHL, Judge.

Harkins appeals the “dismissal” of his application for writ of mandamus. He was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in May, 1973. The Board of Probation and Parole (Board) granted him parole on July 20, 1984. His parole was revoked on January 8, 1993, because he unlawfully possessed a firearm. He was given another parole hearing November, 1993. The Board denied parole due to the nature and severity of the second degree murder offense and his conduct in possessing a firearm. The Board scheduled another parole hearing for November 1995.

After the November 1993 hearing, Harkins discovered his step-daughter wrote a letter to the Board asking to deny him parole. He requested the Board “expunge” the letter from his file and give him a new hearing. The Board denied his request. Harkins then filed an application for a writ of mandamus with the Circuit Court of St. Francois County. The purpose of the application for the writ was to obtain an order that the letter be [690]*690“expunged” from Ms file and that a new parole hearing be held. The court dismissed the application for writ of mandamus because Harkins failed (1) to state grounds for relief and (2) to demonstrate that the denial of parole adversely prejudiced him.

No appeal lies from a dismissal of a petition or application of a writ of mandamus because no alternative writ was issued. Guille v. City of Fredericktown, 679 S.W.2d 436, 437 (Mo.App.1984). Harkins’ remedy is a direct application for writ of mandamus to a higher court. State ex rel. Johnson v. Personnel Advisory Board of State of Missouri, 836 S.W.2d 519 (Mo.App.E.D.1992).

Appeal dismissed.

REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 S.W.2d 689, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 2029, 1995 WL 731587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harkins-v-mitchell-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack