Peete v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peete v. State

567 S.W.3d 670

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 2018

DocketED 106330

StatusPublished

This text of 567 S.W.3d 670 (Peete 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 S.W.3d 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peete-v-state-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack