State v. Murray

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Murray

912 S.W.2d 610, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1796, 1995 WL 634145

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 1995

DocketNos. WD 48384, WD 50377

StatusPublished

This text of 912 S.W.2d 610 (State v. Murray) 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. Murray, 912 S.W.2d 610, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1796, 1995 WL 634145 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction of stealing, third offense, § 570.040, RSMo 1994; appeal of sentence as persistent offender, § 558.016.3, RSMo 1994, of ten years imprisonment and appeal of denial of Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief.

Judgment of conviction and sentence affirmed. Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.25(b).

Nonetheless, this cause is remanded for entry of an order nunc pro tunc under Rule 29.12(c) to correct an error in the trial court’s written judgment. See State v. Winters, 900 S.W.2d 636, 641 (Mo.App.1995). The written judgment erroneously shows that Murray was found guilty of felony stealing over $150. The second amended information, however, charged Murray with felony stealing, third offense, § 570.040, RSMo 1994, and a guilty verdict was returned by the jury on the charge. The case, therefore, is remanded for the entry of an order to reflect that Murray was found guilty of stealing, third offense, rather than stealing over $150.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from conviction of stealing, third offense, § 570.040, RSMo 1994; appeal of sentence as persistent offender, § 558.016.3, RSMo 1994, of ten years imprisonment and appeal of denial of Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief.

Judgment of conviction and sentence affirmed. Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.25(b).

Nonetheless, this cause is remanded for entry of an order nunc pro tunc under Rule 29.12(c) to correct an error in the trial court’s written judgment. See State v. Winters, 900 S.W.2d 636, 641 (Mo.App.1995). The written judgment erroneously shows that Murray was found guilty of felony stealing over $150. The second amended information, however, charged Murray with felony stealing, third offense, § 570.040, RSMo 1994, and a guilty verdict was returned by the jury on the charge. The case, therefore, is remanded for the entry of an order to reflect that Murray was found guilty of stealing, third offense, rather than stealing over $150.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

912 S.W.2d 610, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1796, 1995 WL 634145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murray-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack