Wilson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilson v. State

165 S.W.3d 502, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 675, 2005 WL 1018349

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2005

DocketNo. ED 85006

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.W.3d 502 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 165 S.W.3d 502, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 675, 2005 WL 1018349 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[503]*503 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant James L. Wilson (“Wilson”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion to reopen Rule 29.15 proceedings due to abandonment and conflict of interest of appointed counsel. Wilson was convicted by a jury of three counts of first degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 1986, three counts of kidnapping, Section 565.110, RSMo 1986, and six counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1986. Wilson was sentenced to a total of three consecutive life sentences plus one hundred fifty years.

On appeal, Wilson argues the motion court erred in not addressing the issues raised in his motion to reopen the case under Rule 29.15; and in denying his motion to reopen the case because the record reflects that counsel abandoned one of his claims in the amended motion, which was a violation of his due process rights.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[503]*503 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant James L. Wilson (“Wilson”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his motion to reopen Rule 29.15 proceedings due to abandonment and conflict of interest of appointed counsel. Wilson was convicted by a jury of three counts of first degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 1986, three counts of kidnapping, Section 565.110, RSMo 1986, and six counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1986. Wilson was sentenced to a total of three consecutive life sentences plus one hundred fifty years.

On appeal, Wilson argues the motion court erred in not addressing the issues raised in his motion to reopen the case under Rule 29.15; and in denying his motion to reopen the case because the record reflects that counsel abandoned one of his claims in the amended motion, which was a violation of his due process rights.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.W.3d 502, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 675, 2005 WL 1018349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-moctapp-2005.