Noel v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Noel v. State

811 S.W.2d 63, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1000, 1991 WL 113986

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 1991

DocketNo. 58472

StatusPublished

This text of 811 S.W.2d 63 (Noel 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

Noel v. State, 811 S.W.2d 63, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1000, 1991 WL 113986 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion.

Movant was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed. State v. Noel, 693 S.W.2d 317 (Mo.App.E.D.1985).

Movant filed a pro se motion and two amended motions. His counsel filed an amended motion. An evidentiary hearing was conducted.

Movant’s sole point on appeal alleges failure of his post-conviction relief counsel to interview potential and actual witnesses for movant’s hearing. A “post-conviction proceeding cannot be used to challenge the effectiveness of counsel in the post-conviction proceeding,” Sloan v. State, 779 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo. banc 1989), unless there has been complete abandonment by counsel. Parker v. State, 785 S.W.2d 313 (Mo.App.E.D.1990). Here, movant was not abandoned, as his counsel filed an amended motion and represented him at his eviden-tiary hearing.

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The judgment 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

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion.

Movant was convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed. State v. Noel, 693 S.W.2d 317 (Mo.App.E.D.1985).

Movant filed a pro se motion and two amended motions. His counsel filed an amended motion. An evidentiary hearing was conducted.

Movant’s sole point on appeal alleges failure of his post-conviction relief counsel to interview potential and actual witnesses for movant’s hearing. A “post-conviction proceeding cannot be used to challenge the effectiveness of counsel in the post-conviction proceeding,” Sloan v. State, 779 S.W.2d 580, 583 (Mo. banc 1989), unless there has been complete abandonment by counsel. Parker v. State, 785 S.W.2d 313 (Mo.App.E.D.1990). Here, movant was not abandoned, as his counsel filed an amended motion and represented him at his eviden-tiary hearing.

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

811 S.W.2d 63, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1000, 1991 WL 113986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noel-v-state-moctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack