Mansfield v. State

260 S.W.3d 396, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 124, 2008 WL 222516
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mansfield v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 14
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 29, 2008·No. WD 67774·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Mansfield appeals the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion, without an evi-dentiary hearing, in which he challenged the procedure in the revocation his probation. Claims brought in Rule 24.035 motions are limited to attacks on the conviction, sentence, or, in limited cases, the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. Mansfield’s claim is more properly brought in a writ for habeas corpus.

As Mansfield failed to state a cognizable claim attacking his conviction or sentence, the motions court’s dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion was proper. A lengthy opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been given memorandums of the reasoning of the court. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Mansfield v. State, 260 S.W.3d 396, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 124, 2008 WL 222516 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

260 S.W.3d 396 (Mansfield v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.