cause for an evidentiary hearing in Missouri

2019Accordingly, we reverse and remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing.13 See id.

2017This Court entered its judgment in Routt v. State, 493 S.W.3d 904 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (“Routt I”), reversing the motion court’s judgment and remanding the cause for an evidentiary hearing.

1997This court, in Dean v. State, 901 S.W.2d 323 (Mo.App.1995), remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the violation of Rule 24.02, and other matters complained of by Dean, rendered the plea involuntary and unintelligent.

1988Under the above statutes and authorities, we therefore conclude that (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that the partnership property is not property held in a form of a “joint interest” under § 454.528, R.S.Mo., 1986; (2) no execution may be maintained against partnership property for the judgment debt of an individual debtor partner; (3) the proper procedure is to apply for a charging order upon the interest of the individual partner; (4) there was no substantial evidence to show that a true “partnership” in fact was intended or existed and was a viable entity under Murphy v. Carr

1987We are constrained by the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) and by the subsequent order of our Supreme Court handed down on February 17, 1987, State v. Antwine, No. 67720 1 to remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) requires reversal and retrial.

1987We are constrained by the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) and by the subsequent order of our Supreme Court handed down on February 17, 1987, State v. Antwine, No. 67720 1 to remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) requires reversal and retrial.

1987We are constrained by the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) and by the subsequent order of our Supreme Court handed down on February 17, 1987, State v. Antwine, No. 67720 1 to remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) requires reversal and retrial.

1987We are constrained by the United States Supreme Court’s recent holding in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 , 107 S.Ct. 708 , 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) and by the subsequent order of our Supreme Court handed down on February 17, 1987, State v. Antwine, No. 67720 1 to remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) requires reversal and retrial.

1981Movant appealed the court’s order, and this court reversed on April 4, 1980 and remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing, Russell v. State, supra. Upon the remand, an evidentiary hearing was held on July 21, 1980, to determine whether movant or his attorney had consented to a trial setting outside the 180-day period.

1977Under State v. Hill, 371 S.W.2d 278 (Mo.1963) [7-9], we remand the cause for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of former conviction and punishment of defendant.