Case ID: sw3d_495/html/0177-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. David BRIGGS, Appellant.
    WD 78865
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    ORDER FILED: JUNE 21, 2016
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied August 2, 2016.
    David N. Briggs, Appellant Acting Pro Se.
    Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.
    Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, P.J., James E. Welsh, Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.
   ORDER

Per Curiam:

David Briggs appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion alleging abandonment by post-conviction counsel. He argues that counsel in an earlier post-conviction appeal abandoned him by failing to file an amended Rule 29.15 motion within the time limitations permitted by the rule, and by filing an amended motion that did not properly assert his post-conviction claims such that it was so patently defective that it amounted to a nullity. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).