Parker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Parker v. State

578 S.W.3d 820

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106871

StatusPublished

This text of 578 S.W.3d 820 (Parker 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

Parker v. State, 578 S.W.3d 820 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Tyler R. Parker ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his amended Rule 24.035 motion, arguing that the five-year sentence of imprisonment he received for stealing over $500 was not permitted under State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), which held that stealing over $500 was a misdemeanor offense, not a felony. Bazell, however, was handed down after Movant was sentenced, and as the State argued to the motion court, Bazell applies only prospectively, and not retrospectively, except to cases pending on direct appeal, pursuant to State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, 530 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Mo. banc 2017). The motion court did not clearly err by denying Movant's amended Rule 24.035 motion on the basis that Bazell does not apply retrospectively to his case. The same has been held in Watson v. State, 545 S.W.3d 909, 915 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018), Abrams v. State, 550 S.W.3d 557, 558 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018), Bosworth v. State, 559 S.W.3d 5, 10 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018), Whittley v. State, 559 S.W.3d 401, 403-04 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018), and Harris v. State, 562 S.W.3d 363, 365 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018). An opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential *821purpose. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Tyler R. Parker ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his amended Rule 24.035 motion, arguing that the five-year sentence of imprisonment he received for stealing over $500 was not permitted under State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), which held that stealing over $500 was a misdemeanor offense, not a felony. Bazell, however, was handed down after Movant was sentenced, and as the State argued to the motion court, Bazell applies only prospectively, and not retrospectively, except to cases pending on direct appeal, pursuant to State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, 530 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Mo. banc 2017). The motion court did not clearly err by denying Movant's amended Rule 24.035 motion on the basis that Bazell does not apply retrospectively to his case. The same has been held in Watson v. State, 545 S.W.3d 909, 915 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018), Abrams v. State, 550 S.W.3d 557, 558 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018), Bosworth v. State, 559 S.W.3d 5, 10 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018), Whittley v. State, 559 S.W.3d 401, 403-04 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018), and Harris v. State, 562 S.W.3d 363, 365 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018). An opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential *821purpose. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 S.W.3d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-state-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack