State v. Owens

897 S.W.2d 212, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 835
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Owens. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 129
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 2, 1995·No. Nos. 64150, 66945·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered following his conviction for possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility in violation of § 217.360.1(1) RSMo 1994. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

The variance between the trial court’s oral and written pronouncements of sentence was a clerical error which the trial court corrected in a nunc pro tunc order. Thus, Defendant’s challenge of his sentence is moot. Furthermore, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find [213]*213that the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value nor would it serve any jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

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

State v. Owens, 897 S.W.2d 212, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 835 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

897 S.W.2d 212 (State v. Owens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.