Thomas v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thomas v. State

878 S.W.2d 528, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1105, 1994 WL 313621

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 5, 1994·No. No. 64693·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Earl Thomas, appeals from the dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief. Movant has previously filed a motion under Rule 29.15, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Following a consolidated appeal, this court denied his claims .and affirmed the judgments. State v. Thomas, 830 S.W.2d 546 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). Although movant now purports to seek relief under Rule 74.06, in fact his motion is a successive Rule 29.15 motion.

Rule 29.15(k) prohibits, successive Rule 29.15 motions. The trial court properly dismissed the motion.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed,

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

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Earl Thomas, appeals from the dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief. Movant has previously filed a motion under Rule 29.15, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Following a consolidated appeal, this court denied his claims .and affirmed the judgments. State v. Thomas, 830 S.W.2d 546 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). Although movant now purports to seek relief under Rule 74.06, in fact his motion is a successive Rule 29.15 motion.

Rule 29.15(k) prohibits, successive Rule 29.15 motions. The trial court properly dismissed the motion.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed,

Thomas v. State, 878 S.W.2d 528, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1105, 1994 WL 313621 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

878 S.W.2d 528 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related