Sharp v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sharp v. State

982 S.W.2d 325, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2312, 1998 WL 906396

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 30, 1998

DocketNo. 22225

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 982 S.W.2d 325 (Sharp 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

Sharp v. State, 982 S.W.2d 325, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2312, 1998 WL 906396 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

Movant instituted this postconviction proceeding, relying upon Section 547.360, RSMo Supp.1997. Movant had previously entered [326]*326pleas of guilty and was convicted of first-degree burglary, two counts of sodomy, assault in the third degree, and armed-criminal action. Thereafter, he sought postconviction relief, pursuant to Rule 24.035. The trial court denied that motion and the denial was affirmed on appeal.

The motion in the present case was denied without an evidentiary hearing, apparently on the basis that Section 547.360 did not create a second and independent avenue for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court of Missouri recently so held in Schleeper v. State, No. 80601, 982 S.W.2d 252 (Mo.banc 1998). Although none of the three movants in Schleeper had previously filed a motion under Rule 24.035, they had filed motions under Rule 29.15 or Rule 27.26. The Supreme Court, however, made its holding “also applicable to Rule 24.035.” Schleeper, at 253, n. 2.

The order denying Appellant’s motion is affirmed.

GARRISON, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

Movant instituted this postconviction proceeding, relying upon Section 547.360, RSMo Supp.1997. Movant had previously entered [326]*326pleas of guilty and was convicted of first-degree burglary, two counts of sodomy, assault in the third degree, and armed-criminal action. Thereafter, he sought postconviction relief, pursuant to Rule 24.035. The trial court denied that motion and the denial was affirmed on appeal.

The motion in the present case was denied without an evidentiary hearing, apparently on the basis that Section 547.360 did not create a second and independent avenue for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court of Missouri recently so held in Schleeper v. State, No. 80601, 982 S.W.2d 252 (Mo.banc 1998). Although none of the three movants in Schleeper had previously filed a motion under Rule 24.035, they had filed motions under Rule 29.15 or Rule 27.26. The Supreme Court, however, made its holding “also applicable to Rule 24.035.” Schleeper, at 253, n. 2.

The order denying Appellant’s motion is affirmed.

GARRISON, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

982 S.W.2d 325, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2312, 1998 WL 906396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharp-v-state-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack