Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cameron v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Bonar rests his appeal on Cameron v. State, 863 S.W.2d 385 (Mo.App.1993), in which this court’s Southern District remanded a Rule 24.035 action for a Luleff inquiry. 1994Bonar rests his appeal on Cameron v. State, 863 S.W.2d 385 (Mo.App.1993), in which this court’s Southern District remanded a Rule 24.035 action for a Luleff inquiry. | 2 | 2 |
Luleff v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Because the record indicates that appointed counsel made the determinations required by Rule 29.15(e), the Luleff presumption, 807 S.W.2d at 498 [3], did not arise, and sua sponte inquiry by the motion court was not required. 1994Because the record indicates that appointed counsel made the determinations required by Rule 29.15(e), the Luleff presumption, 807 S.W.2d at 498 [3], did not arise, and sua sponte inquiry by the motion court was not required. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wetzelgreen2 sentences2018A Luleff inquiry may be required, however, "[e]ven though the record may reflect some activity by appointed counsel to demonstrate compliance with Rule 29.15(e)." Poe v. State , 820 S.W.2d 325 , 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (emphasis added). 2018A Luleff inquiry may be required, however, "[e]ven though the record may reflect some activity by appointed counsel to demonstrate compliance with Rule 29.15(e)." Poe v. State , 820 S.W.2d 325 , 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Id. at 292 ; accord , Brown v. State , 968 S.W.2d 725 , 727 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (reversing for Luleff inquiry where counsel's statement in lieu of an amended motion indicated that counsel had not communicated with the movant as part of counsel's determination that an amended motion was unnecessary). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tolergreen2 sentences1995Id. at 163. 1995Id. at 163. | 1 | 1 |
Kinder v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See, e.g., State v. Dewey, 869 S.W.2d 834, 838 (Mo.App.1994); Kinder v. State, 867 S.W.2d 667, 670 (Mo.App.1993); State v. Shields, 862 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Bonar v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Unlike the “notice” in Cameron , the affidavit here affirmatively recites the action by appointed counsel designed to ascertain all grounds for relief known to Toler, i.e., counsel “inquired of movant regarding any additional claims and facts known to him.” See Bonar v. State, 880 S.W.2d 384, 386 [3] (Mo.App.1994). 1994Bonar, 880 S.W.2d at 386 [5]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Deweygreen1 sentence1994See, e.g., State v. Dewey, 869 S.W.2d 834, 838 (Mo.App.1994); Kinder v. State, 867 S.W.2d 667, 670 (Mo.App.1993); State v. Shields, 862 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shieldsgreen1 sentence1994See, e.g., State v. Dewey, 869 S.W.2d 834, 838 (Mo.App.1994); Kinder v. State, 867 S.W.2d 667, 670 (Mo.App.1993); State v. Shields, 862 S.W.2d 503, 506 (Mo.App.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDaris v. State
green
2 sentences2019Alok Ahuja, Judge 1 The Supreme Court explained in McDaris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. banc 1992), that the Luleff inquiry “may be as formal or informal as the motion court deems necessary to resolve the question of abandonment by counsel, including, but not limited to, a written response and opportunity to reply, a telephone conference call, or a hearing,” so long as the inquiry results in “a sufficient record . . . to demonstrate on appeal that the motion court’s determination of the abandonment issue is not clearly erroneous.” Id. at 371 n.1. 2 2019Alok Ahuja, Judge 1 The Supreme Court explained in McDaris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. banc 1992), that the Luleff inquiry “may be as formal or informal as the motion court deems necessary to resolve the question of abandonment by counsel, including, but not limited to, a written response and opportunity to reply, a telephone conference call, or a hearing,” so long as the inquiry results in “a sufficient record . . . to demonstrate on appeal that the motion court’s determination of the abandonment issue is not clearly erroneous.” Id. at 371 n.1. 2 | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Tabor v. State
green
1 sentence2018Tabor v. State , 282 S.W.3d 381 , 385 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) ( Luleff inquiry required even though counsel filed an entry of appearance, requested additional time to file a brief, and "forward[ed] ... correspondence to the motion court relating to the 'status of the case' on three occasions"); Gehlert v. State , 276 S.W.3d 889 , 892-93 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (remanding for abandonment inquiry where appointed counsel entered his appearance, requested guilty plea and sentencing transcripts, and communicated with movant, his daughter, and the court concerning status of case); Poe , 820 S.W.2d at 327 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2018Similarly, in Trehan v. State , 835 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992), the Southern District held that a Luleff inquiry was required where, "[d]espite the flagrant inadequacy of the movant's pro se motion, his appointed counsel simply incorporated the pro se motion, with its blank paragraph 9, into the amended motion and added two additional grounds for relief which the movant now correctly describes as 'uncognizable.' " Id. at 429 . 2018Similarly, in Trehan v. State , 835 S.W.2d 427 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992), the Southern District held that a Luleff inquiry was required where, "[d]espite the flagrant inadequacy of the movant's pro se motion, his appointed counsel simply incorporated the pro se motion, with its blank paragraph 9, into the amended motion and added two additional grounds for relief which the movant now correctly describes as 'uncognizable.' " Id. at 429 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pope v. State
green
2 sentences2018Instead, the Court has explained that "[a]n amended motion ... has been deemed a nullity"-thus triggering the obligation to perform a Luleff inquiry-"when counsel merely replicated a facially deficient pro se motion." Stanley , 420 S.W.3d at 542 (citing Pope v. State , 87 S.W.3d 425 , 427-29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) ). 2018Instead, the Court has explained that "[a]n amended motion ... has been deemed a nullity"-thus triggering the obligation to perform a Luleff inquiry-"when counsel merely replicated a facially deficient pro se motion." Stanley , 420 S.W.3d at 542 (citing Pope v. State , 87 S.W.3d 425 , 427-29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 292 ; accord , Brown v. State , 968 S.W.2d 725 , 727 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (reversing for Luleff inquiry where counsel's statement in lieu of an amended motion indicated that counsel had not communicated with the movant as part of counsel's determination that an amended motion was unnecessary). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gehlert v. State
neutral
1 sentence2018Tabor v. State , 282 S.W.3d 381 , 385 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) ( Luleff inquiry required even though counsel filed an entry of appearance, requested additional time to file a brief, and "forward[ed] ... correspondence to the motion court relating to the 'status of the case' on three occasions"); Gehlert v. State , 276 S.W.3d 889 , 892-93 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (remanding for abandonment inquiry where appointed counsel entered his appearance, requested guilty plea and sentencing transcripts, and communicated with movant, his daughter, and the court concerning status of case); Poe , 820 S.W.2d at 327 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Travis M. Stanley v. State of Missouri
green
2 sentences2018Instead, the Court has explained that "[a]n amended motion ... has been deemed a nullity"-thus triggering the obligation to perform a Luleff inquiry-"when counsel merely replicated a facially deficient pro se motion." Stanley , 420 S.W.3d at 542 (citing Pope v. State , 87 S.W.3d 425 , 427-29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) ). 2018Instead, the Court has explained that "[a]n amended motion ... has been deemed a nullity"-thus triggering the obligation to perform a Luleff inquiry-"when counsel merely replicated a facially deficient pro se motion." Stanley , 420 S.W.3d at 542 (citing Pope v. State , 87 S.W.3d 425 , 427-29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |