Legal Opinion

Carenzo Pittman v. State of Missouri

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 17, 2016No. ED103324PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAngela T. Quigless, Judge

I. Introduction

Carenzo Pittman (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 1 post-conviction relief motion (“Rule 24.035 motion”) without an evidentiary hearing. While the record is unclear as to when the complete transcript was filed, which is required to determine the timeliness of an amended motion, we find the motion court considered whether abandonment occurred under Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Mo. banc 2015). Further, the motion court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on all claims in Movant’s pro se motion and amended motion,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Zink v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
  3. Worthington v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  4. Charles K. Moore v. State of MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 2015
  5. Price v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2014

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Christina Halter v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2021
  2. ERIC JERONE WILLIAMS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2016
  3. ERIC JERONE WILLIAMS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. Mortez Cleaves v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API