State v. West

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. West

144 S.W.3d 906, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1375, 2004 WL 2158953

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. West. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 2011 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 28, 2004·No. No. ED 84051·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Roland Emanuel West, Jr. (“Defendant”) appeals from an order entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his “Motion to Amend Court’s Record of Disposition.” Defendant argues the motion court erred because the evidence left no reasonable ground upon which to deny his motion for a nunc pro tunc order. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Roland Emanuel West, Jr. (“Defendant”) appeals from an order entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his “Motion to Amend Court’s Record of Disposition.” Defendant argues the motion court erred because the evidence left no reasonable ground upon which to deny his motion for a nunc pro tunc order. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

State v. West, 144 S.W.3d 906, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1375, 2004 WL 2158953 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

144 S.W.3d 906 (State v. West) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.