Wallace v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wallace v. State

406 S.W.3d 930, 2013 WL 4728710, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1024

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 3, 2013·No. No. WD 75126·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Carroll Wallace (“Wallace”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. He argues that the court did not have authority to revoke his probation. Specifically, he claims that the revocation was during a third period of probation, and thus is prohibited by section 559.036, and also that the court imposed a second extension of probation, in violation of section 559.016. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Carroll Wallace (“Wallace”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. He argues that the court did not have authority to revoke his probation. Specifically, he claims that the revocation was during a third period of probation, and thus is prohibited by section 559.036, and also that the court imposed a second extension of probation, in violation of section 559.016. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Wallace v. State, 406 S.W.3d 930, 2013 WL 4728710, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1024 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

406 S.W.3d 930 (Wallace v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.