State v. Finerson

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Finerson

147 S.W.3d 764, 2004 Mo. LEXIS 121, 2004 WL 2283587

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedOctober 12, 2004

DocketNo. SC 85609

StatusPublished

This text of 147 S.W.3d 764 (State v. Finerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Finerson, 147 S.W.3d 764, 2004 Mo. LEXIS 121, 2004 WL 2283587 (Mo. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Finerson pleaded guilty to stealing offenses. The trial court imposed five-year sentences on December 28, 1987. On that same date, the court imposed a one-year sentence for forgery. Finerson was delivered to the department of corrections. The sentences were subject to review within 120 days after such delivery.¹ The trial court reviewed Finerson’s sentences, and he was placed on probation on April 15,1988.

Finerson violated probation. His probation was revoked on July 25, 1989. The written judgments for the revocation hearing state that the previously imposed five-year sentences for the stealing offenses were to be executed. :

Finerson contends he was orally sentenced to one year for the stealing offenses at the sentencing following the probation revocation. He filed a nunc pro tunc motion under Rule 29.12(c) to correct the sentences to conform to this allegation. The trial court denied relief, and he appeals. He also contends that sections 559.036 and 557.011, RSMo 1986, are unconstitutional because they fail to protect a probationer from an arbitrary imposition or execution of sentence when probation is revoked. This Court has jurisdiction. Mo. Const art. V, sec. 3.

No error of law appears. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).²

WHITE, C.J., WOLFF, STITH, PRICE, TEITELMAN and LIMBAUGH, JJ., concur. RUSSELL, J., not participating.

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

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Finerson pleaded guilty to stealing offenses. The trial court imposed five-year sentences on December 28, 1987. On that same date, the court imposed a one-year sentence for forgery. Finerson was delivered to the department of corrections. The sentences were subject to review within 120 days after such delivery.¹ The trial court reviewed Finerson’s sentences, and he was placed on probation on April 15,1988.

Finerson violated probation. His probation was revoked on July 25, 1989. The written judgments for the revocation hearing state that the previously imposed five-year sentences for the stealing offenses were to be executed. :

Finerson contends he was orally sentenced to one year for the stealing offenses at the sentencing following the probation revocation. He filed a nunc pro tunc motion under Rule 29.12(c) to correct the sentences to conform to this allegation. The trial court denied relief, and he appeals. He also contends that sections 559.036 and 557.011, RSMo 1986, are unconstitutional because they fail to protect a probationer from an arbitrary imposition or execution of sentence when probation is revoked. This Court has jurisdiction. Mo. Const art. V, sec. 3.

No error of law appears. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).²

WHITE, C.J., WOLFF, STITH, PRICE, TEITELMAN and LIMBAUGH, JJ., concur. RUSSELL, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.W.3d 764, 2004 Mo. LEXIS 121, 2004 WL 2283587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-finerson-mo-2004.