Legal Opinion

Chrisman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 21, 2009No. SD 29215PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DON E. BURRELL, Presiding Judge.

Kevin Chrisman (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his amended Rule 24.035 motion seeking post-conviction relief on the grounds that his guilty plea was “involuntarily, unknowingly, and unintelligently made when he was placed in the position of going forward with trial without having been given the means to prepare for trial through access to legal materials.” Finding no merit in Movant’s claim, we affirm the denial but remand the case so that a clerical omission in the underlying sentence and judgment may be corrected.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Construed…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Bounds v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Rousan v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2001
  5. State v. BlackSupreme Court of Missouri · 2007

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Yarberry v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  2. Barnes v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. Wilson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  4. Bliss v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Michaels v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2011

10 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