Isaiah v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Isaiah v. State

302 S.W.3d 822, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 147, 2010 WL 519773

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

DocketNo. WD 70639

StatusPublished

This text of 302 S.W.3d 822 (Isaiah 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

Isaiah v. State, 302 S.W.3d 822, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 147, 2010 WL 519773 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Darrell Isaiah was found guilty in November 1990 of first degree murder and armed criminal action. He was sentenced in January 1991 to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole for the murder, and twenty years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge. Isaiah filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. The motion court initially granted Isaiah’s post-conviction relief motion. We twice reversed and remanded rulings on Isaiah’s post-conviction motion for further proceedings. See State v. Isaiah, 874 S.W.2d 429 (Mo.App. W.D.1994); Isaiah v. State, 926 S.W.2d 181 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). Ultimately, Isaiah’s motion for post-conviction relief was denied in 1997, and this Court affirmed. Isaiah v. State, 962 S.W.2d 466 (Mo.App. W.D.1998).

On March 2, 2007, Isaiah filed a pro se motion to reopen the proceedings on his Rule 29.15 motion, claiming abandonment by post-conviction counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest. The circuit court denied Isaiah’s motion to reopen, and he appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Darrell Isaiah was found guilty in November 1990 of first degree murder and armed criminal action. He was sentenced in January 1991 to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole for the murder, and twenty years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge. Isaiah filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. The motion court initially granted Isaiah’s post-conviction relief motion. We twice reversed and remanded rulings on Isaiah’s post-conviction motion for further proceedings. See State v. Isaiah, 874 S.W.2d 429 (Mo.App. W.D.1994); Isaiah v. State, 926 S.W.2d 181 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). Ultimately, Isaiah’s motion for post-conviction relief was denied in 1997, and this Court affirmed. Isaiah v. State, 962 S.W.2d 466 (Mo.App. W.D.1998).

On March 2, 2007, Isaiah filed a pro se motion to reopen the proceedings on his Rule 29.15 motion, claiming abandonment by post-conviction counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest. The circuit court denied Isaiah’s motion to reopen, and he appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 S.W.3d 822, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 147, 2010 WL 519773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaiah-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack