Price v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Price v. State

518 S.W.3d 258, 2017 WL 1323884, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 288

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104759

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 258 (Price 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

Price v. State, 518 S.W.3d 258, 2017 WL 1323884, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 288 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Bobby Price (“Price”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Price’s sole point makes an argument not raised in his Rule 24.035 motion. Citing manifest injustice, however, Price requests plain-error review under Rule 84.13(c). Because we cannot conduct plain-error review on an appeal from the denial of a post-conviction motion, we cannot review Price’s claim.

[259]*259We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Bobby Price (“Price”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Price’s sole point makes an argument not raised in his Rule 24.035 motion. Citing manifest injustice, however, Price requests plain-error review under Rule 84.13(c). Because we cannot conduct plain-error review on an appeal from the denial of a post-conviction motion, we cannot review Price’s claim.

[259]*259We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 258, 2017 WL 1323884, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/price-v-state-moctapp-2017.