LAMMERT v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

LAMMERT v. State

364 S.W.3d 669, 2012 WL 456480, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 173

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

DocketED 97071

StatusPublished

This text of 364 S.W.3d 669 (LAMMERT 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

LAMMERT v. State, 364 S.W.3d 669, 2012 WL 456480, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 173 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Lammert (“Lammert”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Mark D. Seigel. Lammert pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident. The Court sentenced Lam-mert to consecutive terms of seven (7) years in the department of corrections for the involuntary manslaughter conviction, and four (4) years imprisonment for the leaving the scene of an accident conviction. Lammert filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief (“PCR motion”) pursuant to Rule 24.035, which the circuit court denied.

On appeal, Lammert argued that the circuit court erred in denying his PCR motion. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Lammert (“Lammert”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Mark D. Seigel. Lammert pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident. The Court sentenced Lam-mert to consecutive terms of seven (7) years in the department of corrections for the involuntary manslaughter conviction, and four (4) years imprisonment for the leaving the scene of an accident conviction. Lammert filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief (“PCR motion”) pursuant to Rule 24.035, which the circuit court denied.

On appeal, Lammert argued that the circuit court erred in denying his PCR motion. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 669, 2012 WL 456480, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lammert-v-state-moctapp-2012.