Wright-El v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Gunn v. Cassady

    Case No. 15-0418-CV-W-FJG-P (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2016)

    "Absent a compelling reason to call the judge as a witness at the post-conviction hearing, the judge is not disqualified from ruling on the motion for post-conviction relief." Wright-El v. State, 890 S.W.2d 664, 672 (Mo. App. 1994). Forcing the judge's recusal by endorsing the judge as a witness frustrates an important purpose of the post-conviction rules, namely, "avoiding delay in the processing of prisoner's claims and preventing litigation of stale claims."

  2. Glaviano v. State

    298 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 20 times
    Noting that, in the context of a jury trial and sentencing by the court, allegations of trial court error during the sentencing hearing are cognizable in a direct appeal, not a post-conviction proceeding, “ ‘except where fundamental fairness requires otherwise and only in rare and exceptional circumstances' ” (quoting State v. Tolliver, 839 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Mo. banc 1992))

    The testimony of a trial or sentencing judge is unnecessary when the allegations of impropriety relate to events that are fully reflected in the record. Wright-El v. State, 890 S.W.2d 664, 672 (Mo.App. 1994); Logan v. State, 712 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Mo.App. 1986); Schroder v. State, 561 S.W.2d 734, 735 (Mo.App. 1978). Point II is denied.

  3. Strickland v. State

    241 S.W.3d 456 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that movant was not entitled to appointed counsel on his successive Rule 29.15 motion

    Pursuant to Rule 29.15, any Rule 27.26 motions that were pending on January 1, 1988, continued to be governed by the provisions of Rule 27.26 in effect on the date the motion was filed. Wright-El v. State, 890 S.W.2d 664, 668 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). Successive and untimely motions are prohibited under Rule 29.15. Schleeper v. State, 982 S.W.2d 252, 253 (Mo. banc 1998).

  4. Eskridge v. State

    193 S.W.3d 849 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 5 times
    In Eskridge, the movant had pleaded guilty to two offenses based upon a plea agreement that her sentences would run concurrently.

    It has been long held that the Movant has the burden of proof to show to the Court that Movant's attorney was ineffective and failed to render such services that conform to a degree of skill and competence of a reasonable, competent attorney. See Wright-El v. State, 890 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.App.E.D. 1994). The Court after reviewing the entire record finds and concludes the Movant's plea attorney, Mary Dilks, was not ineffective and that point is denied.

  5. State v. Chavez

    165 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    Further, whether a trial court has jurisdiction does not depend upon the sufficiency of an information. Wright-El v. State, 890 S.W.2d 664, 669 (Mo.App. E.D. 1994). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of an information post-verdict, the information will be considered "insufficient" only if it is so defective that either "it does not by any reasonable construction charge the offense of which the defendant was convicted" resulting in defendant having no notice of the offense charged or "the substantial rights of the defendant to [adequately] prepare a defense and plead former jeopardy in the event of acquittal are prejudiced."

  6. State v. Summers

    50 S.W.3d 890 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 365. See alsoMcDaris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 369, 374 (Mo.banc 1992), and Wright-El v. State, 890 S.W.2d 664, 668 (Mo.App.E.D. 1994), which indicate that generally, invalid convictions may not be used to enhance punishment. Appellant also contends that the order setting aside the December 23, 1992 docket entry was erroneous.

  7. Vickers v. State

    17 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 8 times
    In Vickers, a motion court found in rejecting Vickers's Rule 24.035 motion that "Movant received a twenty-year sentence because he rejected the State's initial plea offers and chose to proceed to trial."

    Absent a compelling reason to call the judge as a witness at a post-conviction hearing, the judge is not disqualified from ruling on the motion. Wright-El v. State, 890 S.W.2d 664, 672 (Mo.App. 1994). A judge who is a material witness to relevant facts, however, is compelled to recuse himself for fundamental fairness as guaranteed by state and federal due process clauses.

  8. Cooper v. Knox

    950 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    We are entitled to consider our records and that of the court below, as well as the papers filed below by the parties, in determining whether Mr. Cooper should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.See Muza, 769 S.W.2d at 175; In re Jacobs , 794 S.W.2d 199, 202 (Mo. banc 1990); Wright-El v. State , 890 S.W.2d 664, 672 (Mo. App. 1994) (court entitled to take judicial notice of its own records). The only matter which we hold is res judicata based on the dismissal of the appeal of the prior state court action is the right of Mr. Cooper to file suit pending the determination of the federal action, for that is the only issue determined in the prior state court action.

  9. Bruflat v. Mister Guy, Inc.

    933 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 24 times

    Appellate review is limited to determining whether a reason able and disinterested bystander would reasonably question the impartiality of the judge. Wright-el v. State , 890 S.W.2d 664, 671 (Mo. App. 1994). The judge is entitled to a presumption that he will not undertake to preside over a hearing in which he cannot be impartial.

  10. Jamison v. State

    918 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    In Jamison, the defendant filed a request for disposition with the court but failed to serve the motion on the prosecutor.

    Appellate review of a Rule 24.035 motion is limited to a determination of whether the court's holding was clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j); Baird v. State, 906 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Mo. App. 1995); Wright — El v. State, 890 S.W.2d 664, 670 (Mo. App. 1993). To reverse, this court must be left with the firm impression that a mistake has been made after a review of the entire record.