Evans v. Precythe

Missouri Court of Appeals

Evans v. Precythe

568 S.W.3d 458

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 2019

DocketWD 81826

StatusPublished

This text of 568 S.W.3d 458 (Evans v. Precythe) 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

Evans v. Precythe, 568 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In May 2014, Appellant Sterling Evans was an inmate at the Farmington Correctional Center. He was investigated for alleged misconduct, which resulted in prison discipline, but no criminal charges. Evans filed a petition for expungement of the records of the prison misconduct investigation pursuant to § 610.122, RSMo. The circuit court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because Evans did not seek expungement of the sort of "records of arrest" addressed in § 610.122, RSMo, and because he was ineligible for expungement because he had been previously convicted of a felony. Evans *459appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

In May 2014, Appellant Sterling Evans was an inmate at the Farmington Correctional Center. He was investigated for alleged misconduct, which resulted in prison discipline, but no criminal charges. Evans filed a petition for expungement of the records of the prison misconduct investigation pursuant to § 610.122, RSMo. The circuit court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because Evans did not seek expungement of the sort of "records of arrest" addressed in § 610.122, RSMo, and because he was ineligible for expungement because he had been previously convicted of a felony. Evans *459appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 S.W.3d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-precythe-moctapp-2019.