Legal Opinion

Moore v. State

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided December 7, 2010No. SC 90918PublishedCited by 65 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARY R. RUSSELL, Judge.

Anthony Moore was late in filing his Rule 29.15 motion. He contends that his appellate counsel for his direct appeal abandoned him by not timely telling him that the mandate from his appeal had been issued. The State argues that appellate counsel has no duty to provide timely notification. Pursuant to Rule 30.24(b), the clerk of the appellate court sent Moore notice of the mandate being entered, and he does not refute receiving that notice. The judgment of the motion court dismissing his untimely Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed.1

I. Background

Moore was convicted of two…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. J.C.W. Ex Rel. Webb v. WyciskallaSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
  2. Gehrke v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
  3. McFadden v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2008
  4. Bullard v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
  5. Nicholson v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2004

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

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Price v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2014
  2. Watson v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2017
  3. Eastburn v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2013
  4. Jones v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. Miller v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012

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

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

Powered by the Exa API