DUPREE v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

DUPREE v. State

248 S.W.3d 645, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 414, 2008 WL 821045

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

DocketED 89476

StatusPublished

This text of 248 S.W.3d 645 (DUPREE 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

DUPREE v. State, 248 S.W.3d 645, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 414, 2008 WL 821045 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Levert Dupree (Movant) appeals the motion court’s denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The conviction sought to be vacated is felony stealing, in violation of section 570.030 RSMo 2000. 1 Movant was sentenced to five years, to run concurrently with his sentence on a misdemeanor charge. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and 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 would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Levert Dupree (Movant) appeals the motion court’s denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The conviction sought to be vacated is felony stealing, in violation of section 570.030 RSMo 2000. 1 Movant was sentenced to five years, to run concurrently with his sentence on a misdemeanor charge. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and 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 would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.W.3d 645, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 414, 2008 WL 821045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dupree-v-state-moctapp-2008.