State Ex Rel. Zinna v. Steele

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is not appealable,” and that instead “the remedy is to file a new petition in a higher court”
• providing that a claim that the sentence exceeded what was permitted by law is a claim cognizable in a habeas proceedings even if the argument was raised, or should have been raised, in an earlier proceeding
• providing that a claim that the sentence exceeded what was permitted by law is a claim cognizable in a habeas proceeding even if the argument was raised, or should have been raised, in an earlier proceeding
• Rule 29.09 embodies the policy of section 558.026.1 so that sentences run concurrent if a consecutive sentence is not orally pronounced by the trial court
• trial court’s “imposition of a sentence beyond that permitted by the applicable statute or rule” did not raise an issue properly characterized as “jurisdictional” post-Webb
• written judgment stating consecutive sentencing is materially different than concurrent sentencing indicated in oral pronouncement; oral sentence controls

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).