Chalk v. State, 74876
| Decision Date | 23 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 74876,74876 |
| Citation | 990 S.W.2d 87 |
| Parties | James CHALK, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Nancy L. Vincent, St. Louis, Missouri, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixson, Karen L. Kramer, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Missouri, for respondent.
Before JAMES R. DOWD, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.
James Chalk (Movant) was convicted of first degree murder, Section 565.020, RSMo1994, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo1994, and sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment without parole and thirty years, respectively. Movant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, but did not file an affidavit of indigency. He now appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion, arguing that the motion court erred in ruling on his pro se motion without appointing counsel for him and erred in denying his Rule 75.01 motion.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the motion court did not clearly err. Where a movant files no affidavit of indigency with his Rule 29.15 motion, the motion court does not commit error by failing to appoint counsel to represent him. State v. Nichols, 865 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). No appeal is possible from the motion court's refusal to exercise its discretion to set aside or amend its judgment under Rule 75.01. State v. Sielfleisch, 884 S.W.2d 422, 431 (Mo.App. E.D.1994).
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bittick v. State
...order to trigger Rule 29.15(e), an indigent defendant must file an affidavit of indigency with the Rule 29.15 motion. Chalk v. State, 990 S.W.2d 87, 88 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) (holding that it was not error for the motion court to fail to appoint counsel to Rule 29.15 applicant when applicant f......
-
Nolte v. Ford Motor Co.
... ... 3d 371 Factual Background 2 While patrolling Interstate 70 on the morning of May 22, 2003, State Trooper Michael Newton stopped eastbound driver Michael Nolte for a minor traffic violation. Both ... ...
-
Wolf v. State
...a circuit court will not be charged with error for ruling on the motion without appointing counsel. See , e.g. Chalk v. State , 990 S.W.2d 87, 88 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) ("Where a movant files no affidavit of indigency with his Rule 29.15 motion, the motion court does not commit error by faili......
-
State ex rel. Volner v. Storie, SD 32066.
...of the “FORMA PAUPERIS AFFIDAVIT” distinguishes this case from Bittick v. State, 105 S.W.3d 498, 502 (Mo.App.2003), Chalk v. State, 990 S.W.2d 87 (Mo.App.1999), and State v. Nichols, 865 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Mo.App.1993), in which the Eastern and Western Districts of this court noted that the r......