Legal Opinion

White v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 4, 2006No. 27286PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROBERT S. BARNEY, Judge.

Don’e Joe White (“Movant”) appeals the motion court's denial of his Rule 75.01 motion to re-open his prior post-conviction proceeding as well as the trial court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. 1

Movant raises two points on appeal. 2 However, we initially observe that Movant’s statement of facts violates Rule 84.04(c) in that it gives no comprehensible recitation of the facts relevant to the questions presented. Rule 84.04(c) sets out that “[t]he statement of facts shall be a fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented for determination…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Thummel v. KingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1978
  2. State v. BradleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Overall v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
  4. State v. WatkinsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. State v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bell v. BellMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. Mo. Div. of Soc. Servs., Children's Div. v. B.S. (In re Interest of B.L.L.S.)Missouri Court of Appeals · 2018
  3. Picerno v. Nichols-FoxMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006
  4. State v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Pate v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017

1 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