State v. Lawyer

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lawyer

208 S.W.3d 921, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1942, 2006 WL 3716705

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

DocketED 88621

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 208 S.W.3d 921 (State v. Lawyer) 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. Lawyer, 208 S.W.3d 921, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1942, 2006 WL 3716705 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals pro se from the order denying his Rule 29.05 motion, filed March 14, 2003, to reduce as excessive the sentence that he received on August 6, 1991, for first degree assault and armed criminal action. 1 We affirm.

In a criminal prosecution, the judgment becomes final at the time the trial court pronounces sentence. State ex rel. Wagner v. Ruddy, 582 S.W.2d 692, 694 (Mo. banc 1979). The trial court exhausts its jurisdiction when it enters a judgment and sentence consistent with the law. Id. at 695; State v. Warden, 753 S.W.2d 63, 64 (Mo.App.1988). Here, defendant’s sentence was recorded by a docket entry on August 6, 1991. Having properly rendered and entered its final judgment, the trial court thereafter had no power to modify defendant’s sentence pursuant to Rule 29.05. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Rule 29.05 motion. See State v. Van Sickel, 726 S.W.2d 392, 392-93 (Mo.App.1987). Affirmed.

1

. See State v. Lawyer, 890 S.W.2d 419 (Mo.App.1995).

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals pro se from the order denying his Rule 29.05 motion, filed March 14, 2003, to reduce as excessive the sentence that he received on August 6, 1991, for first degree assault and armed criminal action. 1 We affirm.

In a criminal prosecution, the judgment becomes final at the time the trial court pronounces sentence. State ex rel. Wagner v. Ruddy, 582 S.W.2d 692, 694 (Mo. banc 1979). The trial court exhausts its jurisdiction when it enters a judgment and sentence consistent with the law. Id. at 695; State v. Warden, 753 S.W.2d 63, 64 (Mo.App.1988). Here, defendant’s sentence was recorded by a docket entry on August 6, 1991. Having properly rendered and entered its final judgment, the trial court thereafter had no power to modify defendant’s sentence pursuant to Rule 29.05. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s Rule 29.05 motion. See State v. Van Sickel, 726 S.W.2d 392, 392-93 (Mo.App.1987). Affirmed.

1

. See State v. Lawyer, 890 S.W.2d 419 (Mo.App.1995).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 S.W.3d 921, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1942, 2006 WL 3716705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lawyer-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack