Legal Opinion

Allen v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 26, 1999No. WD 55666PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAURA DENVIR STITH, Judge.

The motion court dismissed Mr. Allen’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely because it failed to show on its face that it was filed within 90 days of the date the court of appeals issued its mandate affirming his conviction. Mr. Allen appeals, alleging that his motion was timely filed within 90 days of our mandate, that the court’s own file contained the mandate so indicating, that the court had given him an outdated copy of Form 40 which did not require him to also enter the mandate date on the form itself, and that the court gave him no chance…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Leisure v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992
  2. Lestourgeon v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. McCoo v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. Marschke v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. Martin v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. John Dodd Jackson, Jr., Movant/Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2020
  2. TIMOTHY P. CABLE v. STATE OF MISSOURIMissouri Court of Appeals · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API