Mansfield v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mansfield v. State

260 S.W.3d 396, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 124, 2008 WL 222516

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 29, 2008

DocketWD 67774

StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.W.3d 396 (Mansfield 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

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

Pincite

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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 396, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 124, 2008 WL 222516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mansfield-v-state-moctapp-2008.