James v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

James v. State

248 S.W.3d 689, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 435, 2008 WL 842506

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 1, 2008

DocketWD 68548

StatusPublished

This text of 248 S.W.3d 689 (James 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

James v. State, 248 S.W.3d 689, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 435, 2008 WL 842506 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*690 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Henry James appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 (2007). James pled guilty to possessing an illegal weapon, was sentenced, and released on probation. Prior to the expiration of the probationary period, James violated the terms of his probation and the court issued a capias warrant for his arrest. James was not apprehended and his sentence imposed, however, until after the probationary period had expired. After the court executed the suspended sentence, James sought the vacation of the sentence. He now appeals claiming that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction because the probationary period had expired and the court failed to take every reasonable effort to notify James and conduct a hearing. We affirm the motion court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b).

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

*690 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Henry James appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 (2007). James pled guilty to possessing an illegal weapon, was sentenced, and released on probation. Prior to the expiration of the probationary period, James violated the terms of his probation and the court issued a capias warrant for his arrest. James was not apprehended and his sentence imposed, however, until after the probationary period had expired. After the court executed the suspended sentence, James sought the vacation of the sentence. He now appeals claiming that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction because the probationary period had expired and the court failed to take every reasonable effort to notify James and conduct a hearing. We affirm the motion court’s judgment. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.W.3d 689, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 435, 2008 WL 842506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-state-moctapp-2008.