Legal Opinion

Blankenship v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 7, 1990No. 16287PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MAUS, Judge.

Movant, Stanley Blankenship, appeals from a judgment, following an evidentiary hearing, dismissing his motion under Rule 24.035. The basis assigned for that dismissal was that movant failed to establish the grounds alleged could not have been raised in a prior Rule 27.26 proceeding. On appeal, movant seeks reversal of the dismissal to supply that proof.

Movant pled guilty to robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, on February 25, 1986. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for ten years, but suspended the execution of that sentence. The movant was placed on probation for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Forsythe v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  2. Sours v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Hutchins v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Swenson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Pilchak v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Thurman v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. Lilly v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. Strickland v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. McDowell v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. Strickland v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API