Kennicutt v. State

The majority concludes that the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Kenni-cutt’s postconviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. I respectfully disagree.

At the outset, it bears emphasis that “what is at issue in this appeal is not the motion court’s denial of relief; it is the motion court’s refusal to hold an evidentia-ry hearing to determine whether appellant was entitled to relief under Rule 29.15.” State v. Ivy, 869 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); see also Masden v. State, 62 S.W.3d 661, 664-65 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). Rules 24.035 and 29.15 set a “low bar” for a…