Legal Opinion

Hudson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 20, 2008No. SD 28808PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHN E. PARRISH, Judge.

Albert Hudson (movant) was convicted of burglary in the first degree, § 569.160, RSMo 1986, and attempt to commit forcible rape, § 566.030, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1993. Movant unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. Movant’s convictions and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion were affirmed in State v. Hudson, 970 S.W.2d 855 (Mo.App.1998). Movant thereafter requested “DNA testing of hair samples taken in relation to the crime [for which he was convicted]” pursuant to § 547.035, RSMo 2000. His motion was denied without a hearing. Movant appeals that…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. ErvinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992
  2. Wilkerson v. PrelutskySupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
  3. Rousan v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2001
  4. Shochet v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Schleeper v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1998

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bolt v. GiordanoMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
  2. State v. BrowningMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. In the Adoption of K.M.W.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2017
  4. Ramon Steger v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. State of Missouri v. Ardell FieldsMissouri Court of Appeals · 2016

2 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