State v. Prosser

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Prosser

131 S.W.3d 858, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 539, 2004 WL 770367

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 13, 2004·No. ED 82786·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals pro se the judgment denying his Rule 29.05 motion, filed on March 14, 2003, to reduce as excessive the sentence he received in 1992 on his conviction of second-degree murder. The trial court dismissed the motion on the grounds it lacked jurisdiction.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant’s sentence under Rule 29.05 after it filed its sentence on December 4, 1992. State v. Van Sickel, 726 S.W.2d 392, 393 (Mo.App.1987).

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals pro se the judgment denying his Rule 29.05 motion, filed on March 14, 2003, to reduce as excessive the sentence he received in 1992 on his conviction of second-degree murder. The trial court dismissed the motion on the grounds it lacked jurisdiction.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant’s sentence under Rule 29.05 after it filed its sentence on December 4, 1992. State v. Van Sickel, 726 S.W.2d 392, 393 (Mo.App.1987).

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Prosser, 131 S.W.3d 858, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 539, 2004 WL 770367 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

131 S.W.3d 858 (State v. Prosser) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related