State v. Baugh

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Baugh

238 S.W.3d 709, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2007 WL 2993668

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 2007

DocketED 89378

StatusPublished

This text of 238 S.W.3d 709 (State v. Baugh) 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

State v. Baugh, 238 S.W.3d 709, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2007 WL 2993668 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant William H. Baugh appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Mark D. Seigel presiding, after it denied his Petition to Re-Open Post-Conviction Proceedings. In 1988, after a jury trial, Baugh was convicted of first degree murder, Section 565.020 RSMo. (1986), and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo. (1986). The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole and thirty years, respectively. He filed both a direct appeal and a post-conviction motion under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. His motion was denied and that denial affirmed by this Court, see Baugh v. State, 870 S.W.2d 485 (Mo.Ct.App.E.D.1994); and this Court affirmed his conviction. Id. Baugh filed his petition to reopen post-conviction proceedings in 2006, and it is from the denial of this petition that he appeals.

Baugh brings one claim of error, arguing that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he had shown that his attorney abandoned him during his post-conviction proceedings.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion *710 would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been given a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant William H. Baugh appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Mark D. Seigel presiding, after it denied his Petition to Re-Open Post-Conviction Proceedings. In 1988, after a jury trial, Baugh was convicted of first degree murder, Section 565.020 RSMo. (1986), and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo. (1986). The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole and thirty years, respectively. He filed both a direct appeal and a post-conviction motion under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15. His motion was denied and that denial affirmed by this Court, see Baugh v. State, 870 S.W.2d 485 (Mo.Ct.App.E.D.1994); and this Court affirmed his conviction. Id. Baugh filed his petition to reopen post-conviction proceedings in 2006, and it is from the denial of this petition that he appeals.

Baugh brings one claim of error, arguing that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he had shown that his attorney abandoned him during his post-conviction proceedings.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion *710 would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been given a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W.3d 709, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2007 WL 2993668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baugh-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack