Hoskin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hoskin v. State

88 S.W.3d 526, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2248, 2002 WL 31499274

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 12, 2002

DocketNo. WD 60614

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 S.W.3d 526 (Hoskin 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

Hoskin v. State, 88 S.W.3d 526, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2248, 2002 WL 31499274 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Hoskin appeals the denial of his Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he claims that the motion court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, depriving him of meaningful appellate review. Mr. Hoskin also claims that his post-conviction counsel abandoned him. Because Mr. Hoskin failed to present substantial evidence to support the claim he asserted in his Rule 24.035 motion, this court finds that the motion court was not required to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on that claim. This court also finds that Mr. Hoskin’s claim of abandonment is actually a claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, which is not cognizable in this appeal. Since a published opinion would have no precedential value, [527]*527a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Hoskin appeals the denial of his Rule 24.085 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he claims that the motion court failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, depriving him of meaningful appellate review. Mr. Hoskin also claims that his post-conviction counsel abandoned him. Because Mr. Hoskin failed to present substantial evidence to support the claim he asserted in his Rule 24.035 motion, this court finds that the motion court was not required to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on that claim. This court also finds that Mr. Hoskin’s claim of abandonment is actually a claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, which is not cognizable in this appeal. Since a published opinion would have no precedential value, [527]*527a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.W.3d 526, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2248, 2002 WL 31499274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoskin-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack