Clark v. State

128 S.W.3d 550, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 18, 2004 WL 57274
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Clark v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 57
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 13, 2004·No. No. ED 82808·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Morris Clark (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his post-conviction Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)

The parties are in agreement that the judgment contains a clerical error. The trial court found Movant to be a prior drug offender but incorrectly marked the box indicating he was a persistent drug offender. Accordingly, we amend the judgment to find that Movant is a prior drug offender and not a persistent drug offender.

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

Clark v. State, 128 S.W.3d 550, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 18, 2004 WL 57274 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

128 S.W.3d 550 (Clark v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.