Haney v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haney v. State

903 S.W.2d 221, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1152, 1995 WL 365053

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 1995

DocketNo. 67340

StatusPublished

This text of 903 S.W.2d 221 (Haney 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

Haney v. State, 903 S.W.2d 221, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1152, 1995 WL 365053 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John G. Haney, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Appellant’s motion attacked neither his conviction nor his sentence, but rather attacked the legality of the circuit court’s revocation of his probation. A Rule 24.035 motion is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the legality of a court’s revocation of probation. Wood v. State, 853 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). The adoption of Rule 24.035 in place of Rule 27.26 does not change this rule. Id. The circuit court did not clearly err in dismissing appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion. Because an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment 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.

Appellant, John G. Haney, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Appellant’s motion attacked neither his conviction nor his sentence, but rather attacked the legality of the circuit court’s revocation of his probation. A Rule 24.035 motion is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the legality of a court’s revocation of probation. Wood v. State, 853 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). The adoption of Rule 24.035 in place of Rule 27.26 does not change this rule. Id. The circuit court did not clearly err in dismissing appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion. Because an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

903 S.W.2d 221, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1152, 1995 WL 365053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haney-v-state-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack