In Interest of ADR
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
RENDLEN, Judge.
In this post-conviction civil action, movant asks this Court to recall the mandate and vacate our opinion affirming his robbery conviction, contending that defense counsel in the criminal appeal, was ineffective by constitutional standards. Such action, cognizable by our Court as the tribunal which heard and determined the appeal, is limited to consideration of that single issue, see Hemphill v. State, 566 S.W.2d 200, 208 (Mo. banc 1978), and governed by procedures prescribed for Rule 27.26 proceedings insofar as applicable.
Recently in Seales v. State, 580 S.W.2d 733, 736 (Mo.…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Kent v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Fare v. Michael C.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Breed v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Cox v. Chesapeake & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Seales v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1979
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- State v. WoodworthMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1983
- Burton v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1982
- Kenneth Gray v. Jeff NormanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
- State v. TateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1982
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.