Legal Opinion · Dissent

Charles K. Moore v. State of Missouri

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 14, 2015No. SC94277Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Paul C. Wilson, Judge

Rule 84.14 provides: “Unless justice otherwise requires, the [appellate] court shall dispose finally of the case.” Because the principal opinion falls short of this requirement by ordering a remand that cannot benefit Mr. Moore and risks harming him, I respectfully dissent.

Moore’s amended motion under Rule 29.15(g) was not filed on time. Accordingly, he may not have been entitled to have the motion court rule on the merits of that motion. But, regardless of whether he was entitled to such a ruling, the motion court did rule on the merits of Moore’s…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Sanders v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1991
  3. White v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1997
  4. Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  5. Hutchison v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2004

10 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