Supreme Court of Missouri· 1/12/2010

State Ex Rel. Zinna v. Steele

Citations

301 S.W.3d 510
2010 Mo. LEXIS 3
2010 WL 97996

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).

Judges: Laura Denvir Stith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

68 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.