State v. Lawyer

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lawyer

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 2006·No. ED 88621·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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).

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

Pincite

208 S.W.3d 921 (State v. Lawyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related