Randolph v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Randolph v. State

534 S.W.3d 307

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 12, 2017

DocketNo. ED 105471

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 534 S.W.3d 307 (Randolph 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

Randolph v. State, 534 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Matthew B'. Randolph (“Movant”) appeals from, the motion court’s judgment denying without an evidentiary hearing his 2016 Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion due to abandonment. Movant argued he was abandoned due to post-conviction counsel’s failure to file an arpended motion as required by Rule 29.15(e). On appeal, Movant challenges the motion court’s finding that his motion was successive. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion-would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Matthew B'. Randolph (“Movant”) appeals from, the motion court’s judgment denying without an evidentiary hearing his 2016 Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion due to abandonment. Movant argued he was abandoned due to post-conviction counsel’s failure to file an arpended motion as required by Rule 29.15(e). On appeal, Movant challenges the motion court’s finding that his motion was successive. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion-would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 S.W.3d 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randolph-v-state-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack