Legal Opinion

Pippenger v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 29, 1990No. 17012PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHRUM, Judge.

Movant 1 pled guilty to a charge of failure to appear. He received a 5-year sentence to run concurrently to a 20-year sentence on a conviction for rape. 2 Movant now appeals from an order denying post-conviction relief under former Rule 27.26 3 on his failure to appear conviction.

Movant’s motion was originally filed pro se December 28, 1984. His initial grounds for seeking relief were that: (a) the guilty plea was involuntary because it was an “equivocal plea”; (b) movant was misad-vised and misled concerning service of the additional consecutive sentence; and (c) a conviction…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Mallett v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1989
  2. Thomas v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. O'NEAL v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1989
  4. Lingar v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1989
  5. Boggs v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Trehan v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Ennis v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  3. Pelton v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. Mosby v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Trehan v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992

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