State v. Washington

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Washington

940 S.W.2d 532, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 120, 1997 WL 29177

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 28, 1997·No. No. 70181·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alvin Washington (“defendant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis resentencing him as a Class X offender pursuant to RSMo § 558.019 (Cum.Supp.1992). We affirm.

On October 7,1993, defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, RSMo § 569.170 (1986), and sentenced as a Class X offender. This Court remanded for further proceedings on defendant’s status as a Class X offender and for resentencing. Defendant [533] was resentenced as a Class X offender. On appeal, defendant argues, first, that the 1994 amendment to ESMo § 558.019 eliminating the Class X offender classification applied to his resentencing; and second, the 1994 amendment to ESMo § 556.061(8) excluding burglary from its definition of “dangerous felonies” applied to his resentencing.

Both points are without merit. State v. Beers, 926 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); State v. Tivis, 933 S.W.2d 843, 848 n. 3 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Eule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alvin Washington (“defendant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis resentencing him as a Class X offender pursuant to RSMo § 558.019 (Cum.Supp.1992). We affirm.

On October 7,1993, defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree, RSMo § 569.170 (1986), and sentenced as a Class X offender. This Court remanded for further proceedings on defendant’s status as a Class X offender and for resentencing. Defendant [533] was resentenced as a Class X offender. On appeal, defendant argues, first, that the 1994 amendment to ESMo § 558.019 eliminating the Class X offender classification applied to his resentencing; and second, the 1994 amendment to ESMo § 556.061(8) excluding burglary from its definition of “dangerous felonies” applied to his resentencing.

Both points are without merit. State v. Beers, 926 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Mo.App. E.D.1996); State v. Tivis, 933 S.W.2d 843, 848 n. 3 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Eule 30.25(b).

State v. Washington, 940 S.W.2d 532, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 120, 1997 WL 29177 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

940 S.W.2d 532 (State v. Washington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related