Legal Opinion

Sadler v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 17, 1998No. 72714PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMES R. DOWD, Judge.

Christopher Sadler appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Sadler claims that the motion court erred in denying his motion because: (1) his counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him that he would have to serve a minimum of 85% of his sentence before being eligible for parole; and (2) the plea court did not address him personally in open court as required by Rule 24.02. We agree with the second contention and reverse and remand foi an evidentiary hearing.

Sadler was charged by information in three…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Leisure v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992
  2. State v. HasnanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Clark v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Tolen v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  5. Schofield v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brown v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. Price v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Watts v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. Johnson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Moore v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998

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