cognizable claim in Missouri

2021Rush, 366 S.W.3d at 666 ; see also Griffin, 937 S.W.2d at 400-01 (defendant’s challenge to effectiveness of sentencing counsel during sentencing hearing after revocation of probation following SIS was cognizable under Rule 24.035 as challenge to legality of his sentence).

2012Cognizability of Taylor’s Claim “Rule 24.035 allows for challenges to the validity of judgments or sentences only, and then only on specified grounds.” Griffin v. State, 937 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Mo.App.

2019Dickerson v. State, 269 S.W.3d 889 , 893 n.3 (Mo. banc 2008); Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636, 646 (Mo. banc 2008); McCoy v. State, 431 S.W.3d 517, 522-23 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).

2012It has long been held that “[t]o state a cognizable claim of ineffectiveness for failure to ... preserve an issue on appeal, [a movant] must allege that the trial counsel’s failure denied him a fair trial.” Id.; see also Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636, 646 (Mo. banc 2008). “ ‘The preservation of an issue for appeal cannot affect the fairness of the trial; preservation only affects rights and standards on appeal.’ ” Johnson v. State, 283 S.W.3d 279, 282 (Mo.App.

1989Feemster v. State, 735 S.W.2d 159, 159 (Mo.App., E.D.1987).

1988Feemster v. State, 735 S.W.2d 159, 159 (Mo.App., E.D.1987).

2025“Post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15 is not a substitute for direct appeal or to obtain a second chance at appellate review.” McLaughlin, 378 S.W.3d at 357 ; see Jones v. State, 696 S.W.3d 450 , 460 (Mo. App. 2024).

2023"To state a cognizable claim for ineffectiveness for failure to . . . preserve an issue on appeal, [Johnson] must allege that the trial counsel's failure denied him a fair 16 trial." Id. at 355 .

2021Rush, 366 S.W.3d at 666 ; see also Griffin, 937 S.W.2d at 400-01 (defendant’s challenge to effectiveness of sentencing counsel during sentencing hearing after revocation of probation following SIS was cognizable under Rule 24.035 as challenge to legality of his sentence).

2013Rush v. State, 366 S.W.3d 663, 665 (Mo.App.E.D.2012); Sny der, 288 S.W.3d at 303 .

2020Prewitt v. State, 191 S.W.3d 709, 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (citing State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994); Green v. State, 494 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Mo. banc 1973)).

2011(Emphasis added.) Citing to Prewitt v. State, 191 S.W.3d 709 (Mo.App.2006), the State argues that we need not address the specific issue on appeal because Movant’s motion failed to state a cognizable claim under Rule 24.035.

2024Instead, Mr. McLaughlin seeks to challenge the trial court’s evidentiary ruling as a matter of trial court err[or], which is not a cognizable claim in a Rule 29.15 proceeding.”); Tisius v. State, 183 S.W.3d 207, 212 (Mo. banc 2006) (“Unlike a claim of withheld evidence, which would not be known to a movant during trial or direct appeal, a claim involving allegedly improper argument was apparent at trial and could have been raised on direct appeal.”).

2024Breeden v. Hueser, 273 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ("[We] will not . . . affirm the grant of a motion to dismiss on grounds not stated in the motion."). 17 77. [Barrett's] disclosure of his bi-racial heritage dramatically changed [Cole County's] perception of him, from seeing him as a White man to seeing him as bi-racial or, upon information and belief, Black. 78.

2023Standard of Review "This Court reviews a post-conviction relief motion for whether the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous." Forrest v. State, 290 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Mo. banc 2009); accord Rule 29.15(k).

2022A.F., 491 S.W.3d at 632 (citing Hendricks v. Curators of University of Missouri, 308 S.W.3d 740, 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010)).

2022Suelthaus & Kaplan, P.C., 847 S.W.2d at 876 (citing Bennett, 698 S.W.2d at 865 ); A.F., 491 S.W.3d at 632 (citing Hendricks, 308 S.W.3d at 747 ).

2020Prewitt v. State, 191 S.W.3d 709, 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (citing State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994); Green v. State, 494 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Mo. banc 1973)).

2020Prewitt v. State, 191 S.W.3d 709, 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (citing State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994); Green v. State, 494 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Mo. banc 1973)).

2019Dickerson v. State, 269 S.W.3d 889 , 893 n.3 (Mo. banc 2008); Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636, 646 (Mo. banc 2008); McCoy v. State, 431 S.W.3d 517, 522-23 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).

2019See Meyer v. City of Walnut Grove, 505 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Mo. App. 2016) (to present a cognizable claim of negligence, a plaintiff is required to show that defendant had a legal duty to plaintiff, that defendant breached that duty, and plaintiff suffered resulting damages caused by defendant’s negligence).

2019In Christiansen v. Omnicom Group, Inc. , 852 F.3d 195 , 199 (2d Cir. 2017), the Second Circuit upheld the district court's holding that sexual orientation discrimination *25 is not protected by Title VII, but reversed its holding regarding the plaintiff's sexual stereotyping claim, relying on Price Waterhouse 's analysis to find a homosexual male had a cognizable claim under Title VII.

2019In Christiansen v. Omnicron Group, Inc., 852 F.3d 195, 199 (2d Cir. 2017), the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s holding that sexual orientation discrimination is not protected by Title VII, but reversed its holding regarding the plaintiff’s sexual stereotyping claim, relying on Price Waterhouse’s analysis to find a homosexual male had a cognizable claim under Title VII.

2016See Ellison v. Fry, 437 S.W.3d 762, 777 (Mo. banc 2014).

2016See Ellison v. Fry, 437 S.W.3d 762, 777 (Mo.banc 2014).

2015As this Court clearly indicated in Barry v. State, 404 S.W.3d 338, 344 (Mo.App.S.D.2013), “a challenge to the sufficiency of an information is not a cognizable claim in a post-conviction relief proceeding ... [where] Movant’s claim could (and therefore should) have been raised on direct appeal.” Id. at 345 .

2015As this Court clearly indicated in Barry v. State, 404 S.W.3d 338, 344 (Mo.App.S.D.2013), “a challenge to the sufficiency of an information is not a cognizable claim in a post-conviction relief proceeding ... [where] Movant’s claim could (and therefore should) have been raised on direct appeal.” Id. at 345 .

2013Movant acknowledges in his brief that a challenge to the sufficiency of an information is not a cognizable claim in a post-conviction relief proceeding, see Rupert v. State, 250 S.W.3d 442, 447 (Mo.App.