State v. Briggs

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Briggs

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 21, 2016·No. WD 78865·Published

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).

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

Pincite

495 S.W.3d 177 (State v. Briggs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.