New v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE

Missouri Court of Appeals

New v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE

343 S.W.3d 775, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1013, 2011 WL 3273595

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 2, 2011

DocketWD 73226

StatusPublished

This text of 343 S.W.3d 775 (New v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE) 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

New v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE, 343 S.W.3d 775, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1013, 2011 WL 3273595 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Jeffery New appeals the Circuit Court of Cole County’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, he claimed the Missouri Department of Corrections and the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole have a duty to recalculate his mandatory minimum prison term based upon changes to § 558.019, RSMo. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

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:

Jeffery New appeals the Circuit Court of Cole County’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, he claimed the Missouri Department of Corrections and the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole have a duty to recalculate his mandatory minimum prison term based upon changes to § 558.019, RSMo. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 S.W.3d 775, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1013, 2011 WL 3273595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-v-missouri-board-of-probation-parole-moctapp-2011.