Sanders motion (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

Sanders motion in Missouri

6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 3 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Joseph Barber v. State of Missourigreen
moctapp · 2019 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2021–2024
2 sentences

2024See Earl, 628 S.W.3d at 701 (reversing and remanding for sufficient record of independent abandonment inquiry where Sanders motion was not filed under oath); Barber, 569 S.W.3d at 561 (holding record insufficient to review abandonment inquiry because timeliness motion was not filed under oath, and court therefore was constrained to reverse and remand for motion court to make sufficient record of independent abandonment inquiry); Lampkin, 560 S.W.3d at 71 n.1 (holding record insufficient to determine whether motion court’s determination of timeliness of amended motion was not clearly erroneous

2021Simply signing and dating – “rubber stamping” – counsel’s Sanders motion “is not a sufficient inquiry and does not provide a sufficient record to demonstrate on appeal that the motion court’s abandonment issue 5 determination is not clearly erroneous.” Lampkin, 560 S.W.3d at 71; Barber, 569 S.W.3d at 561 .

12
Moore v. Stategreen
mo · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000Moore v. State, 934 S.W.2d 289, 290 (Mo. banc 1996)(applying Luleff and Sanders analysis for Rule 24.035 motions).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Sanders v. State green
mo · 1991
2 sentences

2024Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991).

2021Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991). 1 Counsel stated that he did his best to file Movant’s amended motion on April 4, 2017; that he was not able to file the amended motion until 12:00 a.m. on April 5, 2017; that the motion was technically untimely by about 30 seconds; and that the untimely filing was attributable to counsel’s high caseload and his desire to give Movant’s case the attention it deserved despite counsel’s high caseload.

32000–2024
Lampkin v. State green
moctapp · 2018
2 sentences

2024See Earl, 628 S.W.3d at 701 (reversing and remanding for sufficient record of independent abandonment inquiry where Sanders motion was not filed under oath); Barber, 569 S.W.3d at 561 (holding record insufficient to review abandonment inquiry because timeliness motion was not filed under oath, and court therefore was constrained to reverse and remand for motion court to make sufficient record of independent abandonment inquiry); Lampkin, 560 S.W.3d at 71 n.1 (holding record insufficient to determine whether motion court’s determination of timeliness of amended motion was not clearly erroneous

2021We thus follow this Court’s decisions in Lampkin v. State, 560 S.W.3d 67 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018); Barber v. State, 569 S.W.3d 556 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019); and Brown v. State, 602 S.W.3d 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020), which reversed and remanded for the motion court to make a sufficient record of an independent inquiry into abandonment.

22021–2024
State v. Hibler green
mo · 1999
1 sentence

2017Mr. Sanders’ claim of instructional error fails, however, because his instruction deviated from “the manner in which the greater crime is charged in the accusatory pleading.” Hibler, 5 S.W.3d at 150 .

12017–2017
State v. Sanders green
moctapp · 1992
1 sentence

2004Id. at 172-73 .

12004–2004

Where else courts name it

TX 15 (1984–2026) MS 12 (1983–2018) FL 10 (1980–2019) MI 10 (1980–2019) CA 9 (1969–2021) IN 8 (1998–2026) GA 7 (1980–2022) SC 7 (1932–2026) IL 7 (1974–2019) AL 7 (1990–2015) MD 6 (1978–2022) MO 6 (2000–2024) PA 6 (2016–2019) OH 5 (2001–2022) NY 4 (2012–2024) WA 4 (1984–2026) DC 4 (1999–2025) MT 3 (1996–2004) MA 3 (1981–2019) KS 3 (1890–2025) LA 3 (1995–2019) WI 3 (2017–2024) ID 3 (2010–2023) AR 2 (2014–2025) MN 2 (2001–2025) AK 2 (2002–2015) TN 2 (1999–2025) NM 2 (1989–2000) VA 2 (1992–2024)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check