Webster v. State

GRIMM, Judge.

Movant Byron Webster appeals denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. He alleges the mandatory requirements of Rule 29.15(e) were not complied with, in that appointed counsel provided him with no representation. We reverse and remand for appointment of new counsel and for further proceedings consistent with the provisions of Rule 29.15.

The facts relating to movant’s charge, trial, and conviction appear in State v. Webster, 659 S.W.2d 286 (Mo.App.E.D.1983).

On June 16, 1988, movant filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion. The motion…