Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

Nathan D. CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Nathan D. Clark, Appellant Pro-se.

Dora Fichter, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Division Two: W. Douglas Thomson, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Clark appeals, pro se , from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Clark claims the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because the motion court failed to (1) determine three claims contained in his amended pro se Rule 24.035 motion; (2) order post-conviction counsel to amend his Rule 24.035 motion; and (3) determine all claims in his original pro se Rule 24.035 motion and his amended pro se Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm. Rule 84.16 (b).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Clark v. State
(Apr 6, 2021)