Humphrey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Humphrey v. State

174 S.W.3d 76, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1560, 2005 WL 2746340

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketED 85326

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 174 S.W.3d 76 (Humphrey 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

Humphrey v. State, 174 S.W.3d 76, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1560, 2005 WL 2746340 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Deraid D. Humphrey, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that under section 217.450 RSMo.2000 of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law, the plea court lacked jurisdiction to accept his *77 plea because he was not notified of a de-tainer within one year after it was filed with the Department of Correction’s facility where he was incarcerated.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Deraid D. Humphrey, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, movant argues that under section 217.450 RSMo.2000 of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law, the plea court lacked jurisdiction to accept his *77 plea because he was not notified of a de-tainer within one year after it was filed with the Department of Correction’s facility where he was incarcerated.

The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.W.3d 76, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1560, 2005 WL 2746340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack