W. SOBBERI v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

W. SOBBERI v. State

176 S.W.3d 718, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1716, 2005 WL 3108725

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 22, 2005

DocketED 85195

StatusPublished

This text of 176 S.W.3d 718 (W. SOBBERI 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

W. SOBBERI v. State, 176 S.W.3d 718, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1716, 2005 WL 3108725 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Casey W. Sobberi (“Mov-ant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In the underlying case, Movant pled guilty to burglary in the first degree, section 569.160, RSMo 2000 1 , assault in the second degree, section 565.060, armed criminal action, section 571.015, and felony stealing, section 570.030.3. Subsequently, Movant was sentenced to a total of twenty years imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Casey W. Sobberi (“Mov-ant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In the underlying case, Movant pled guilty to burglary in the first degree, section 569.160, RSMo 2000 1 , assault in the second degree, section 565.060, armed criminal action, section 571.015, and felony stealing, section 570.030.3. Subsequently, Movant was sentenced to a total of twenty years imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.W.3d 718, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1716, 2005 WL 3108725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-sobberi-v-state-moctapp-2005.