Legal Opinion

Bonar v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 2, 1994No. WD 48352PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPINDEN, Judge.

George Bonar appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. He seeks remand on the ground that his motion attorney abandoned him by virtue of not filing an amended motion and relying instead on the motion Bonar had prepared.

In postconviction proceedings, abandonment results from a motion counsel’s failure to file an amended motion when the record makes no showing of motion counsel’s compliance with Rule 24.035(e).1 Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495, 497-98 (Mo. banc 1991). When the record shows no activity by motion counsel on the movant’s behalf, the motion court must make a sua…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Luleff v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
  2. State v. ShieldsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. State v. DeweyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Kinder v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. Cameron v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1993

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. PowellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
  2. State v. JacksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. State v. TolerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. State v. HillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API