MUSTION v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

MUSTION v. State

303 S.W.3d 215, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 188, 2010 WL 609903

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

DocketWD 70694

StatusPublished

This text of 303 S.W.3d 215 (MUSTION 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

MUSTION v. State, 303 S.W.3d 215, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 188, 2010 WL 609903 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Appellant James A. Mustion appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Mustion argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction when it rescinded a portion of its previous order, which was made pursuant to section 559.115, RSMo 2000, and which provided that Mustion was to attend a 120-day treatment program. Because the circuit court expressly made its order subject to certain conditions, and because Mustion violated those conditions, the court had the authority to enforce its order by rescinding that portion of it that provided that Mustion was to attend the 120-day treatment program. Accordingly, the motion court’s denial of Mustion’s motion for post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous, and we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Appellant James A. Mustion appeals the circuit court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Mustion argues that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction when it rescinded a portion of its previous order, which was made pursuant to section 559.115, RSMo 2000, and which provided that Mustion was to attend a 120-day treatment program. Because the circuit court expressly made its order subject to certain conditions, and because Mustion violated those conditions, the court had the authority to enforce its order by rescinding that portion of it that provided that Mustion was to attend the 120-day treatment program. Accordingly, the motion court’s denial of Mustion’s motion for post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous, and we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 215, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 188, 2010 WL 609903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mustion-v-state-moctapp-2010.