Supreme Court of Missouri· 6/17/2003

State v. Whitfield

Citations

107 S.W.3d 253
2003 Mo. LEXIS 105
2003 WL 21386284

How courts have described this case

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

holding motion to recall mandate is appropriate to remediate the deprivation of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights
superseded on other grounds by State v. McLaughlin, 265 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Mo. banc 2008)
superseded on other grounds by State v. McLaughlin, 265 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Mo. banc 2008)
“It is up to each state to determine . . . [which U.S. Supreme Court decisions are retroactive] on collateral review. So long as the state’s test is not narrower than that set forth in [the Supreme Court’s retroactivity cases], it will pass constitutional muster.”
“While this Court has never fully delineated the scope of an appellate court’s power to recall its mandate, it is well-established that . . . jurisdiction may be reacquired by means of the judicial power to recall a mandate for certain purposes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Laura Denvir Stith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

96 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

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.