From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randolph v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Sep 12, 2017
534 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)

Opinion

No. ED 105471

09-12-2017

Matthew B. RANDOLPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Matthew B. Randolph (Pro Se), Crossroads Correctional Center, 1115 E. Pence Road, Cameron, MO. 64429, for appellant. Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.


Matthew B. Randolph (Pro Se), Crossroads Correctional Center, 1115 E. Pence Road, Cameron, MO. 64429, for appellant.

Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Matthew B. Randolph ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying without an evidentiary hearing his 2016 Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion due to abandonment. Movant argued he was abandoned due to post-conviction counsel's failure to file an amended motion as required by Rule 29.15(e). On appeal, Movant challenges the motion court's finding that his motion was successive. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2015).


Summaries of

Randolph v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Sep 12, 2017
534 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)
Case details for

Randolph v. State

Case Details

Full title:Matthew B. RANDOLPH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Date published: Sep 12, 2017

Citations

534 S.W.3d 307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)

Citing Cases

Randolph v. State

When Randolph raised the exception again in 2016, claiming he was "abandoned" by post-conviction counsel due…

Randolph v. State

, we affirmed the motion court's ruling that this motion was successive in violation of Rule 29.15(1).…