Dickson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dickson v. State

565 S.W.3d 199

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 9, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106223

StatusPublished

This text of 565 S.W.3d 199 (Dickson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dickson v. State, 565 S.W.3d 199 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

James H. Dickson ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Judgment ("Judgment") denying Movant's Amended Motion to vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence, which alleged a sentence in excess of the maximum authorized by law, without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal *200and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

James H. Dickson ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order and Judgment ("Judgment") denying Movant's Amended Motion to vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence, which alleged a sentence in excess of the maximum authorized by law, without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal *200and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

565 S.W.3d 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickson-v-state-moctapp-2018.