Legal Opinion

Ahart v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 1987No. 14891PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FLANIGAN, Judge.

Movant Leonard Dale Ahart appeals from an order denying, without an eviden-tiary hearing, his Rule 27.26 1 motion to set aside a judgment and 15-year sentence for sale of a controlled substance. § 195.020. Movant’s initial motion, filed pro se, was supplemented by three successive motions prepared by his instant counsel. Since the last motion incorporated the contents of its predecessors, the motions will be viewed as one instrument.

In general, it is movant’s position that the motion alleged facts showing ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the jury trial,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kimmelman v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Sinclair v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Pelham v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Taylor v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Garrett v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Allbritton v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. Barker v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Barton v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Poole v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. Ducept v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989

12 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