Casey Langhans v. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtKurt S. Odenwald, Judge
Introduction
Casey Langhans (“Langhans”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his amended Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. In his sole point on appeal, Langhans argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying him an evi-dentiary hearing, in that the record did not conclusively refute his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Because Langhans did not file his initial pro se Rule 24.035 motion within 180 days of his first delivery to the Missouri Department of Corrections, his amended Rule 24.035 motion was untimely and…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dorris v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
- Swallow v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2013
- State Ex Rel. Nixon v. JaynesSupreme Court of Missouri · 2001
- Unnerstall v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2001
- Pettry v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Henson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017
- Shawn Wenzel v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2019
- Wesley E. Marks v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2019