Goldsberry v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Goldsberry v. State

504 S.W.3d 67, 2016 WL 2894725, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 502

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103073

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 67 (Goldsberry 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

Goldsberry v. State, 504 S.W.3d 67, 2016 WL 2894725, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 502 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[68]*68 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jody Goldsberry (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, pursuant to Section 577.010, RSMo (Cum Supp. 2010) and Section 577.023, RSMo (Cum Supp. 2012). Movant was sentenced to five years in prison. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[68]*68 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jody Goldsberry (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, pursuant to Section 577.010, RSMo (Cum Supp. 2010) and Section 577.023, RSMo (Cum Supp. 2012). Movant was sentenced to five years in prison. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 S.W.3d 67, 2016 WL 2894725, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldsberry-v-state-moctapp-2016.