Legal Opinion

Bland v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 8, 1991No. WD 42864PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANFORD, Judge.

This is a direct appeal from judgment denying post-conviction relief pursuant to a Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment is affirmed.

Movant presents four points by which he charges the hearing court erred in denying him post-conviction relief, to wit: (1) the hearing court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter, because the hearing judge was disqualified upon a Motion for Change of Judge; (2) movant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial defense counsel failed to object to his conviction on three separate charges of sodomy committed against the same victim…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. JacksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. State v. ApplewhiteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. State v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. State v. BlandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
  5. Farnsworth v. WeeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Mountjoy v. BonackerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. State v. JacksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Garvester Bracken, Movant/Appellant v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
  4. State v. WilkinsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. State v. NibargerMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009

3 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