State v. Washington

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Washington

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 1997

DocketNo. 70181

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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]*533was 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]*533was 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 S.W.2d 532, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 120, 1997 WL 29177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-washington-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack