Legal Opinion

Winningham v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 1989No. 55134PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion.1 His conviction had previously been affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Winningham, 733 S.W.2d 3 (Mo.App.1987). We affirm.

Movant contends that the court erred in denying his 27.26 motion because the State violated the Agreement on Detainers Act, § 217.490, Art. IV, Par. 5, RSMo (1986), and lost its jurisdiction over him when the State returned him to the custody of the Federal Government before final disposition of state case against him.

When, as here, a federal prisoner’s appearances in a state court are…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. MauroSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. State v. KelseyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. State v. WinninghamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. LeisureMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API