Case Name: Earl THOMAS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1994-07-05
Citations: 878 S.W.2d 528
Docket Number: No. 64693
Parties: Earl THOMAS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 878
Pages: 528–528

Head Matter:
Earl THOMAS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 64693.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
July 5, 1994.
Earl Thomas, pro se.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Movant, Earl Thomas, appeals from the dismissal of his motion for postconviction relief. Movant has previously filed a motion under Rule 29.15, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. Following a consolidated appeal, this court denied his claims .and affirmed the judgments. State v. Thomas, 830 S.W.2d 546 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). Although movant now purports to seek relief under Rule 74.06, in fact his motion is a successive Rule 29.15 motion.
Rule 29.15(k) prohibits, successive Rule 29.15 motions. The trial court properly dismissed the motion.
The judgment of the motion court is affirmed,