Legal Opinion

Nunn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 24, 1988No. 53535PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant appeals after the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant was found guilty by a jury of first-degree assault for the shooting of an off-duty police officer and sentenced by the court as a prior offender to 25 years’ imprisonment. We affirmed in State v. Nunn, 697 S.W.2d 244 (Mo.App.1985).

Movant filed a pro se Rule 27.26 motion, amended following appointment of counsel, in which he alleged that his trial attorney was ineffective. Movant’s specific allegations relevant to this appeal were that counsel failed to contact a witness…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Chambers v. MississippiSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Richardson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. State v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1981
  4. Thomas v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. Sweazea v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. McFaddenSupreme Court of Missouri · 2012
  2. State v. CarrMissouri Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. State v. MeadowsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. Chambers v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Vincent McFadden v. State of MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API