DeBold v. State

Scott DeBOLD v. STATE of Missouri

DeBold v. State, 772 S.W.2d 29 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: June 30, 1989
Docket: No. 55188
Judges: Crandall, Crist, Reinhard
Citations: 772 S.W.2d 291989 Mo. App. LEXIS 9681989 WL 72073

Cited by 4

Opinion of the Court — Crist

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant was convicted of robbery first degree, assault first degree, and armed criminal action and sentenced to respective prison sentences of thirty years, ten years and fifteen years, each to run consecutively. Movant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. DeBold, 735 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1987).

Movant asserts error in the denial of his timely motion to disqualify the assigned judge. Movant was entitled to one change of judge as a matter of right if his application was timely filed. Rule 51.05(a); Moore v. State, 594 S.W.2d 355, 356 [1,2] (Mo.App.1980). Movant filed his pro se Rule 29.15 motion on January 19, 1988. His motion was assigned to Division 7 that same day. Movant was appointed counsel on January 28, 1988, and Judge Corrigan was designated as judge. On March 28, 1988, counsel filed movant’s amended Rule 29.15 motion along with a motion to disqualify Judge Corrigan. On April 28,1988, the motion court overruled movant’s request to disqualify judge and granted mov-ant’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

Movant asserts he filed his application for change of judge within thirty days after the answer was due, and under Rule 51.05(b) a change of judge was mandated.

In a Rule 29.15 proceeding, the State is not required to file an “answer.” Accordingly, an application for change of judge must be filed within thirty days after the designation of the trial judge. Toney v. State, 770 S.W.2d 411 (Mo.App.1989). Movant’s application was not timely filed.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

State ex rel. King v. Huesemann776 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)
Thomas v. State808 S.W.2d 364 (Mo. 1991)
Bland v. State805 S.W.2d 192 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)
State ex rel. Ott v. Bonacker791 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)

Most recent

Thomas v. State808 S.W.2d 364 (Mo. 1991)
Bland v. State805 S.W.2d 192 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)
State ex rel. Ott v. Bonacker791 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)
State ex rel. King v. Huesemann776 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Toney v. State, 770 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)	10
	Moore v. State, 594 S.W.2d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)	2
	State v. Debold, 735 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list