From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sullenger v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Jan 30, 1996
914 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)

Opinion

No. 66903.

January 30, 1996.

APPEAL FROM MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY; LUCY DECKER RAUCH, JUDGE.

Susan K. Eckles, Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.


Movant appeals from the motion court's judgment dismissing his amended Rule 24.035 motion as untimely and denying relief on his pro se motion after an evidentiary hearing. The state concedes the necessity of a remand to the motion court "with instructions to conduct a Sanders hearing to determine why an amended motion was not [timely] filed by post-conviction counsel . . . ." Movant also addresses a point on appeal to the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief on his pro se motion. However, judicial economy would not be served by such piecemeal review. We remand to the motion court pursuant to the state's concession.

See Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991).

KAROHL and DOWD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sullenger v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Jan 30, 1996
914 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)
Case details for

Sullenger v. State

Case Details

Full title:HENRY SULLENGER, MOVANT/APPELLANT, v. STATE OF MISSOURI…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One

Date published: Jan 30, 1996

Citations

914 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)