State v. Radley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Radley

538 S.W.3d 345

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 2017·No. WD 80077·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

*346Jerry Radley appeals from the denial of his "Motion Requesting Sua Spont[e] Inquiry into Abandonment by Postconviction Counsel," which also alleged that "Counsel Labored Under a Conflict of Interest." Radley argues that the court erred in denying his motion on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. Because the court did not clearly err in denying Radley's motion, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Per Curiam:

*346Jerry Radley appeals from the denial of his "Motion Requesting Sua Spont[e] Inquiry into Abandonment by Postconviction Counsel," which also alleged that "Counsel Labored Under a Conflict of Interest." Radley argues that the court erred in denying his motion on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. Because the court did not clearly err in denying Radley's motion, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

State v. Radley, 538 S.W.3d 345 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

538 S.W.3d 345 (State v. Radley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.