State v. Lawrence

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lawrence

33 S.W.3d 587, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1531, 2000 WL 1528895

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 2000

DocketNo. ED 78151

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 S.W.3d 587 (State v. Lawrence) 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. Lawrence, 33 S.W.3d 587, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1531, 2000 WL 1528895 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM,

Edward Lawrence, acting pro se, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his “Petition For Nunc Pro Tunc Order.” Appellant’s petition alleged that his conviction of a double homicide in 1984 was invalid and should be set aside, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed in the matter or to enter judgment convicting and sentencing him on the charges, in that the State’s indictment against him had incorrectly joined a count of Murder in the First Degree with a count of Capital Murder, in violation of the version of Supreme Court Rule 28.05 which was in effect at the time and which provided that no capital murder could be charged in the same indictment or information with any other offense. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value and serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, prepared a memorandum for the parties explaining the reasons for this order. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM,

Edward Lawrence, acting pro se, appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his “Petition For Nunc Pro Tunc Order.” Appellant’s petition alleged that his conviction of a double homicide in 1984 was invalid and should be set aside, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed in the matter or to enter judgment convicting and sentencing him on the charges, in that the State’s indictment against him had incorrectly joined a count of Murder in the First Degree with a count of Capital Murder, in violation of the version of Supreme Court Rule 28.05 which was in effect at the time and which provided that no capital murder could be charged in the same indictment or information with any other offense. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value and serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, prepared a memorandum for the parties explaining the reasons for this order. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 S.W.3d 587, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1531, 2000 WL 1528895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lawrence-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack