Hurst v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hurst v. State

276 S.W.3d 905, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 705, 2009 WL 485736

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 17, 2009·No. ED 91650·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael D. Hurst (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to reopen his Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 post-conviction proceeding based on allegations of abandonment of post-conviction counsel. Movant claims post-conviction counsel abandoned him, and therefore, he is entitled to reopen the proceedings.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for them information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*906 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael D. Hurst (“movant”) appeals the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to reopen his Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 post-conviction proceeding based on allegations of abandonment of post-conviction counsel. Movant claims post-conviction counsel abandoned him, and therefore, he is entitled to reopen the proceedings.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for them information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*906 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Hurst v. State, 276 S.W.3d 905, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 705, 2009 WL 485736 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

276 S.W.3d 905 (Hurst v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related