State v. Davis

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Davis

126 S.W.3d 775, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 92, 2004 WL 116583

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82273

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.W.3d 775 (State v. Davis) 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

State v. Davis, 126 S.W.3d 775, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 92, 2004 WL 116583 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Lee Davis (Defendant) appeals the judgment denying his “Motion To Correct Manifest Injustice Pursuant To Rule 29.07(d).” He asserts he is entitled to jail time credit pursuant to either a plea agreement or section 558.031, RSMo 1986.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law or otherwise. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Lee Davis (Defendant) appeals the judgment denying his “Motion To Correct Manifest Injustice Pursuant To Rule 29.07(d).” He asserts he is entitled to jail time credit pursuant to either a plea agreement or section 558.031, RSMo 1986.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law or otherwise. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.W.3d 775, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 92, 2004 WL 116583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-moctapp-2004.