Tyler v. State

111 S.W.3d 495, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 786, 2003 WL 21210501
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 27, 2003·No. ED 81129·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Leroy Tyler (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Motion to Vacate Judgment, Reinstate the Case and Appoint Counsel to Amend Motion for Hearing pursuant to Rule 27.26, predecessor of Rule 29.15. Movant contends his motion was a motion to reinstate a Rule 27.26 motion on the grounds that appointed counsel failed to file an amended motion. Movant argues he suffered abandonment because counsel did not file an amended motion and that he is entitled to a hearing on the matter.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance "with Rule 84.16(b).

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

Tyler v. State, 111 S.W.3d 495, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 786, 2003 WL 21210501 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

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

Related

Tyler v. Korneman
E.D. Missouri, 2024
State of Missouri v. Tyler
E.D. Missouri, 2020
Tyler v. Schollmeyer
E.D. Missouri, 2019
Morales v. Ramey
E.D. Missouri, 2019
Tyler v. State
292 S.W.3d 338 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)