Peete v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peete v. State

567 S.W.3d 670

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 20, 2018·No. ED 106330·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Patrick D. Peete (Movant) appeals the judgment denying without an evidentiary hearing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred because his convictions for sixteen counts of stealing and concurrent seven-year sentences were unlawful under the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Patrick D. Peete (Movant) appeals the judgment denying without an evidentiary hearing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant argues that the motion court clearly erred because his convictions for sixteen counts of stealing and concurrent seven-year sentences were unlawful under the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Peete v. State, 567 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

567 S.W.3d 670 (Peete v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related