State v. Murray

912 S.W.2d 610, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1796, 1995 WL 634145
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 31, 1995·No. Nos. WD 48384, WD 50377·Published

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

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

912 S.W.2d 610 (State v. Murray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Winters
900 S.W.2d 636 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)