State v. Bickell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bickell

941 S.W.2d 767, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 443

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 1997

DocketNos. 67873, 70853

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 941 S.W.2d 767 (State v. Bickell) 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. Bickell, 941 S.W.2d 767, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

KAROHL, Judge.

Defendant-movant filed appeals after sentencing on charges of producing marijuana, § 195.211 RSMo 1986, and possessing drug paraphernalia, § 195.233 RSMo 1986. He also appeals denial of Rule 29.15 relief after an evidentiary hearing. We dismissed the direct appeal because it was untimely filed. During the pendency of the appeal from denial of Rule 29.15 relief defendant-movant failed to comply with the provisions for release under bond. We have declared a bond forfeiture and issued a warrant for his arrest. He remains at-large.

We now dismiss the Rule 29.15 appeal because defendant-movant has knowingly violated the terms and conditions of his appeal bond by willfully failing to appear. By his willful conduct defendant-movant has adversely affected the criminal justice system. The escape rule applies to motions for post conviction relief under Rule 29.15. Hicks v. State of Missouri, 824 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Mo.App.1992). [Application for transfer denied.] The “escape rule” operates to withdraw a right of appeal from a defendant-movant who has escaped from justice. We accept and adopt the discussion of the rationale for the rule contained in Hicks. Id. at 134.

Appeal dismissed.

AHRENS, C.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

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

KAROHL, Judge.

Defendant-movant filed appeals after sentencing on charges of producing marijuana, § 195.211 RSMo 1986, and possessing drug paraphernalia, § 195.233 RSMo 1986. He also appeals denial of Rule 29.15 relief after an evidentiary hearing. We dismissed the direct appeal because it was untimely filed. During the pendency of the appeal from denial of Rule 29.15 relief defendant-movant failed to comply with the provisions for release under bond. We have declared a bond forfeiture and issued a warrant for his arrest. He remains at-large.

We now dismiss the Rule 29.15 appeal because defendant-movant has knowingly violated the terms and conditions of his appeal bond by willfully failing to appear. By his willful conduct defendant-movant has adversely affected the criminal justice system. The escape rule applies to motions for post conviction relief under Rule 29.15. Hicks v. State of Missouri, 824 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Mo.App.1992). [Application for transfer denied.] The “escape rule” operates to withdraw a right of appeal from a defendant-movant who has escaped from justice. We accept and adopt the discussion of the rationale for the rule contained in Hicks. Id. at 134.

Appeal dismissed.

AHRENS, C.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

941 S.W.2d 767, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bickell-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack