Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. State

569 S.W.3d 563

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106923

StatusPublished

This text of 569 S.W.3d 563 (Taylor v. State) 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

Taylor v. State, 569 S.W.3d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Antron Taylor ("Taylor") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion seeking post-conviction relief. Taylor pleaded guilty to a Class C felony of stealing in violation of Section 570.030. Taylor argues appeal that, pursuant to State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), his sentence should have been based on a class A misdemeanor, not a class C felony. Because Bazell does not apply retroactively to Taylor's plea and sentencing, we affirm the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Antron Taylor ("Taylor") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion seeking post-conviction relief. Taylor pleaded guilty to a Class C felony of stealing in violation of Section 570.030. Taylor argues appeal that, pursuant to State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), his sentence should have been based on a class A misdemeanor, not a class C felony. Because Bazell does not apply retroactively to Taylor's plea and sentencing, we affirm the motion court's judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 S.W.3d 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack