Esters v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Esters v. State

188 S.W.3d 126, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 478, 2006 WL 851701

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 2006

DocketED 86465

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 S.W.3d 126 (Esters 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

Esters v. State, 188 S.W.3d 126, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 478, 2006 WL 851701 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Esters (“Movant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant prayed that the motion court correct the sentence and judgment for two separate offenses of unlawful use of a weapon, section 571.030, RSMo 2000. On May 28, 2004, Movant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for his February 5, 2004 offense to run consecutively with his sentence of four years of imprisonment for his September 6, 2002 offense. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the motion court’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Esters (“Movant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant prayed that the motion court correct the sentence and judgment for two separate offenses of unlawful use of a weapon, section 571.030, RSMo 2000. On May 28, 2004, Movant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for his February 5, 2004 offense to run consecutively with his sentence of four years of imprisonment for his September 6, 2002 offense. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the motion court’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 S.W.3d 126, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 478, 2006 WL 851701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esters-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack