East v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

East v. State

228 S.W.3d 37, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 767, 2007 WL 1467240

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 2007

DocketWD 66695

StatusPublished

This text of 228 S.W.3d 37 (East 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

East v. State, 228 S.W.3d 37, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 767, 2007 WL 1467240 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Byron L. East appeals from the order of the Circuit Court of Buchanan County dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as being untimely and successive. In his motion, he sought to vacate or set aside the judgment of his convictions in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County for second-degree murder, pursuant to § 565.021, and armed criminal action, pursuant to § 571.015. As a result of his convictions, he was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to consecutive terms of imprisonment of life and 100 years, respectively, in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

*38 In his amended brief, the appellant raises what he designates as four points on appeal. In all four points, he claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion as being untimely and successive. In Point I, he claims that the trial court erred because it “abused it’s [sic] discretion by refusing to rule and grant [his] motion for entry of default judgment.” In Point II, he claims that the trial court erred because “the trial court abused it’s [sic] discretion when it ruled that the refiled motion was untimely and successive.” In Point III, he claims that the trial court erred because “appellant’s initial motion filed pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 29.15 was dismissed without prejudice.” In Point IV, he claims that the trial court erred because “the judgment entered in the case of State v. Byron L. East, Case Number CR695-891FX and Case Number CV399-22CC is a void judgment.”

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Byron L. East appeals from the order of the Circuit Court of Buchanan County dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as being untimely and successive. In his motion, he sought to vacate or set aside the judgment of his convictions in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County for second-degree murder, pursuant to § 565.021, and armed criminal action, pursuant to § 571.015. As a result of his convictions, he was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to consecutive terms of imprisonment of life and 100 years, respectively, in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

*38 In his amended brief, the appellant raises what he designates as four points on appeal. In all four points, he claims that the trial court erred in dismissing his Rule 29.15 motion as being untimely and successive. In Point I, he claims that the trial court erred because it “abused it’s [sic] discretion by refusing to rule and grant [his] motion for entry of default judgment.” In Point II, he claims that the trial court erred because “the trial court abused it’s [sic] discretion when it ruled that the refiled motion was untimely and successive.” In Point III, he claims that the trial court erred because “appellant’s initial motion filed pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 29.15 was dismissed without prejudice.” In Point IV, he claims that the trial court erred because “the judgment entered in the case of State v. Byron L. East, Case Number CR695-891FX and Case Number CV399-22CC is a void judgment.”

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 S.W.3d 37, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 767, 2007 WL 1467240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-v-state-moctapp-2007.