Legal Opinion

Hurst v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 8, 2011No. ED 96636PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPatricia L. Cohen, P.J.

Introduction

Michael D. Hurst (Movant) appeals, pro se, from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 74.06(b)(4) motion to vacate the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Background

In 1991, a jury convicted Movant of first-degree armed robbery and armed criminal action. The court sentenced Mov-ant to concurrent terms of thirty years’ imprisonment. Thereafter, Movant filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, alleging eleven grounds for relief. In “Ground Six,” Movant alleged that the police…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2006
  2. Crews v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
  3. Baxi v. United Technologies Automotive Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2003
  4. Schleicher v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1972
  5. Kerth v. Polestar EntertainmentMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hemant Godara v. Guari SinghMissouri Court of Appeals · 2023
  2. Maurice T. Davis v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2024

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

Powered by the Exa API