Mahlberg v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mahlberg v. State

916 S.W.2d 858, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 266, 1996 WL 70210

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

DocketNo. 68936

StatusPublished

This text of 916 S.W.2d 858 (Mahlberg 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

Mahlberg v. State, 916 S.W.2d 858, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 266, 1996 WL 70210 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pled guilty to passing bad checks, § 570.120, RSMo 1994. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment.

Defendant filed a Rule 24.035 motion. Thereafter, the motion court entered judgment denying the motion without a hearing. [859]*859On appeal, defendant alleges the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty because there was an insufficient factual basis to support his conviction. However, defendant failed to raise this issue in his Rule 24.035 motion. We have no jurisdiction to review issues which were not before the motion court. State v. Light, 835 S.W.2d 933, 941 (Mo.App.E.D.1992).

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant pled guilty to passing bad checks, § 570.120, RSMo 1994. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment.

Defendant filed a Rule 24.035 motion. Thereafter, the motion court entered judgment denying the motion without a hearing. [859]*859On appeal, defendant alleges the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty because there was an insufficient factual basis to support his conviction. However, defendant failed to raise this issue in his Rule 24.035 motion. We have no jurisdiction to review issues which were not before the motion court. State v. Light, 835 S.W.2d 933, 941 (Mo.App.E.D.1992).

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

916 S.W.2d 858, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 266, 1996 WL 70210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahlberg-v-state-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack