John Childers v. State of Missouri

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “Assuming that a request will be granted does not relieve counsel of the obligation to actually make the request if additional time is needed, and extensions will not be presumed to have been granted without a record thereof.”
• “Assuming that a request will be granted does not relieve counsel of the obligation to actually make the request if additional time is needed, and extensions will not be presumed to have been granted without a record thereof.”
• “Assuming that a request will be granted does not relieve counsel of the obligation to actually make the request if additional time is needed, and extensions will not be presumed to have been granted without a record thereof.”
• “Assuming that a request will be granted does not relieve counsel of the obligation to actually make the request if additional time is needed, and extensions will not be presumed to have been granted without a record thereof.”
• finding remand for an abandonment inquiry to be “pointless,” as the motion court had already considered and denied all claims in both the pro-se and amended motions with written findings of fact and conclusions of law
• finding no prejudice from counsel’s failure to object to admission at sentencing of letter whose writer claimed to have been raped by movant, given that “there was no evidence the trial court had actually relied on this letter”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).