Smith v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

568 S.W.3d 61

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106670

StatusPublished

This text of 568 S.W.3d 61 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 568 S.W.3d 61 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Paul Smith ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion. Movant claims his three-year sentence of imprisonment for stealing over $500 was unauthorized by law according to State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), which held that offense was not a felony, but was actually a misdemeanor. But Bazell was handed down after Movant's sentence was imposed, and as the State correctly pointed out to the motion court, Bazell cannot be applied retroactively, only prospectively, expect to cases pending on direct appeal, as determined in State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer , 530 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Mo. banc 2017). The motion court did not err by dismissing Movant's case on this ground. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. We affirm under Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Paul Smith ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion. Movant claims his three-year sentence of imprisonment for stealing over $500 was unauthorized by law according to State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), which held that offense was not a felony, but was actually a misdemeanor. But Bazell was handed down after Movant's sentence was imposed, and as the State correctly pointed out to the motion court, Bazell cannot be applied retroactively, only prospectively, expect to cases pending on direct appeal, as determined in State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer , 530 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Mo. banc 2017). The motion court did not err by dismissing Movant's case on this ground. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. We affirm under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 S.W.3d 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack