Tyler v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tyler v. State

111 S.W.3d 495, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 786, 2003 WL 21210501

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 27, 2003

DocketED 81129

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 111 S.W.3d 495 (Tyler v. State) 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

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

Pincite

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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.W.3d 495, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 786, 2003 WL 21210501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-state-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack