Summary
holding that it was not error for the motion court to fail to appoint counsel to Rule 29.15 applicant when applicant failed to file an affidavit of indigency
Summary of this case from Bittick v. StateOpinion
No. 74876.
ORDER FILED: February 23, 1999. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 5, 1999. Application to Transfer Denied June 1, 1999.
APPEAL FROM: THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, HON. DAVID C. MASON, J.
Nancy L. Vincent, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, Missouri, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixson, Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Missouri, for respondent.
Before: James R. Dowd, P.J., Lawrence G. Crahan, J., and Richard B. Teitelman, J.
ORDER
James Chalk (Movant) was convicted of first degree murder, Section 565.020, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994, and sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole and thirty years, respectively. Movant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, but did not file an affidavit of indigency. He now appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion, arguing that the motion court erred in ruling on his pro se motion without appointing counsel for him and erred in denying his Rule 75.01 motion.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err. Where a movant files no affidavit of indigency with his Rule 29.15 motion, the motion court does not commit error by failing to appoint counsel to represent him. State v. Nichols, 865 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). No appeal is possible from the motion court's refusal to exercise its discretion to set aside or amend its judgment under Rule 75.01. State v. Sielfleisch, 884 S.W.2d 422, 431 (Mo.App.E.D. 1994).
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).