State ex rel. Dunn v. Byland

Missouri Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Dunn v. Byland

209 S.W.3d 41, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1860, 2006 WL 3593976

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 12, 2006·No. No. ED 87396·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Phyllis Byland, the records manager with Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center, Missouri Department of Corrections (“Byland”), appeals the judgment of the trial court finding in favor of Edward Dunn (“Dunn”) and making its preliminary order in mandamus permanent. Byland argues that the trial court erred in holding that the Missouri Department of Corrections cannot count Dunn’s 120-day program as a commitment for purposes of calculating a mandatory minimum prison term pursuant to a 2003 amendment to section 559.115 RSMo (2000).

[42] We 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.

Phyllis Byland, the records manager with Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center, Missouri Department of Corrections (“Byland”), appeals the judgment of the trial court finding in favor of Edward Dunn (“Dunn”) and making its preliminary order in mandamus permanent. Byland argues that the trial court erred in holding that the Missouri Department of Corrections cannot count Dunn’s 120-day program as a commitment for purposes of calculating a mandatory minimum prison term pursuant to a 2003 amendment to section 559.115 RSMo (2000).

[42] We 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).

State ex rel. Dunn v. Byland, 209 S.W.3d 41, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1860, 2006 WL 3593976 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

209 S.W.3d 41 (State ex rel. Dunn v. Byland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.