Anderson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Anderson v. State

898 S.W.2d 154, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 958, 1995 WL 310729

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 23, 1995·No. No. 66332·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his Rule 24.035 motion seeking to vacate the judgment entered on his plea of guilty to the charge of distributing a controlled substance near a school, § 195.214 RSMo.Supp.1989.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Defendant’s sole point on appeal concerns a claim which was not presented to the motion court. Such a claim cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Williams, 861 S.W.2d 670, 680 (Mo.App. 1993). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his Rule 24.035 motion seeking to vacate the judgment entered on his plea of guilty to the charge of distributing a controlled substance near a school, § 195.214 RSMo.Supp.1989.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Defendant’s sole point on appeal concerns a claim which was not presented to the motion court. Such a claim cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Williams, 861 S.W.2d 670, 680 (Mo.App. 1993). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Anderson v. State, 898 S.W.2d 154, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 958, 1995 WL 310729 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

898 S.W.2d 154 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related