State v. Briggs

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Briggs

495 S.W.3d 177, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 627, 2016 WL 3413060

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2016

DocketWD 78865

StatusPublished

This text of 495 S.W.3d 177 (State v. Briggs) 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. Briggs, 495 S.W.3d 177, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 627, 2016 WL 3413060 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per Curiam:

David Briggs appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion alleging abandonment by post-conviction counsel. He argues that counsel in an earlier post-conviction appeal abandoned him by failing to file an amended Rule 29.15 motion within the time limitations permitted by the rule, and by filing an amended motion that did not properly assert his post-conviction claims such that it was so patently defective that it amounted to a nullity. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Per Curiam:

David Briggs appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion alleging abandonment by post-conviction counsel. He argues that counsel in an earlier post-conviction appeal abandoned him by failing to file an amended Rule 29.15 motion within the time limitations permitted by the rule, and by filing an amended motion that did not properly assert his post-conviction claims such that it was so patently defective that it amounted to a nullity. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

495 S.W.3d 177, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 627, 2016 WL 3413060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-briggs-moctapp-2016.