Purham v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Purham v. State

199 S.W.3d 908, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1255, 2006 WL 2472638

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 29, 2006

DocketED 86733

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 S.W.3d 908 (Purham 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

Purham v. State, 199 S.W.3d 908, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1255, 2006 WL 2472638 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

KENNETH M. ROMINES, Judge.

Ricky Purham (Purham) appeals from the Circuit Court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. We dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Purham was charged, as a prior and persistent felony offender, with two counts of first degree assault and one count of armed criminal action. Purham entered a guilty plea under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). After a hearing, the Circuit Court accepted Purham’s plea, and sentenced him to three concurrent 22-year sentences. Purham later filed a Rule 24.035 motion, in which he alleged his plea counsel was ineffective. Purham did not sign this motion. The Circuit Court, Hon. Larry Kendrick, denied the motion.

All motions filed with the court must be signed. Rule 55.03(a); Tooley v. State, 20 S.W.3d 519, 520 (Mo. banc 2000) (an “unsigned, unverified motion for post-conviction relief is a nullity and does not invoke the jurisdiction of the court”). See also Blanton v. State, 159 S.W.3d 870 (Mo.App. W.D.2000). Because Purham failed to sign his Rule 24.035 motion, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Blanton, 159 S.W.3d at 871.

DISMISSED.

GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., concur.

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

OPINION

KENNETH M. ROMINES, Judge.

Ricky Purham (Purham) appeals from the Circuit Court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. We dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Purham was charged, as a prior and persistent felony offender, with two counts of first degree assault and one count of armed criminal action. Purham entered a guilty plea under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). After a hearing, the Circuit Court accepted Purham’s plea, and sentenced him to three concurrent 22-year sentences. Purham later filed a Rule 24.035 motion, in which he alleged his plea counsel was ineffective. Purham did not sign this motion. The Circuit Court, Hon. Larry Kendrick, denied the motion.

All motions filed with the court must be signed. Rule 55.03(a); Tooley v. State, 20 S.W.3d 519, 520 (Mo. banc 2000) (an “unsigned, unverified motion for post-conviction relief is a nullity and does not invoke the jurisdiction of the court”). See also Blanton v. State, 159 S.W.3d 870 (Mo.App. W.D.2000). Because Purham failed to sign his Rule 24.035 motion, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Blanton, 159 S.W.3d at 871.

DISMISSED.

GLENN A. NORTON, P.J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.W.3d 908, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1255, 2006 WL 2472638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purham-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack