Legal Opinion

Penn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 26, 2006No. ED 87648PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Judge.

The movant, Stanley Penn, appeals the dismissal of his pro se Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief by the Circuit Court of Gasconade County. The court dismissed the motion for two distinct reasons: because the court believed the motion was not timely filed and because the movant neglected to sign it. We reverse and remand because the-motion was timely filed, and the movant should have the opportunity to correct his omitted signature.

The movant was convicted of selling and distributing methamphetamine, and this Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal on…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wallingford v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2004
  2. Tooley v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2000
  3. Blanton v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. State v. PennMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Henderson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Conard v. EngelMissouri Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. In Re Estate of ConardMissouri Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Penn v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API