Narrative Opinion Summary
Mark Hall appeals the denial of his motion for a change of judge by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, arguing that the motion court erred by overruling his request during post-conviction proceedings. Hall claims that comments made by the court suggested it had pre-judged his case and relied on extrajudicial information. The appellate court finds that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and thus affirms the denial. An extended opinion is deemed unnecessary for precedential value; however, a memorandum opinion has been provided for the parties, outlining the reasons for the court's decision. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Judgment under Rule 84.16(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The judgment is affirmed without an extended opinion, as the appellate court found no need for additional precedential analysis.
Reasoning: The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Motion for Change of Judgesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant's motion for a change of judge was denied as the motion court's findings were not found to be clearly erroneous.
Reasoning: The appellate court finds that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and thus affirms the denial.
Use of Extrajudicial Informationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant argued that the motion court relied on extrajudicial information, but the appellate court upheld the motion court’s decision.
Reasoning: Hall claims that comments made by the court suggested it had pre-judged his case and relied on extrajudicial information.