Wright v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wright v. State

510 S.W.3d 363, 2017 WL 490438, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 110

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 7, 2017·No. No. 104102·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Cletist Wright (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The State of Missouri (“State”) charged Movant with the class A felony of robbery in the first degree (Count I), in violation of Section 569.020, and the unclassified felony of armed criminal action (Count II), in violation of Section 571.015. The State amended Count I to the class B felony of robbery in the second degree under Section 569.030, and entered a memorandum of nolle prosequi of Count II, armed criminal action. Movant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree pursuant to a plea agreement, and was sentenced to a term of 12 years imprisonment. Movant did not file a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. We have [364] 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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Cletist Wright (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The State of Missouri (“State”) charged Movant with the class A felony of robbery in the first degree (Count I), in violation of Section 569.020, and the unclassified felony of armed criminal action (Count II), in violation of Section 571.015. The State amended Count I to the class B felony of robbery in the second degree under Section 569.030, and entered a memorandum of nolle prosequi of Count II, armed criminal action. Movant pleaded guilty to robbery in the second degree pursuant to a plea agreement, and was sentenced to a term of 12 years imprisonment. Movant did not file a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence. We have [364] 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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Wright v. State, 510 S.W.3d 363, 2017 WL 490438, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 110 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

510 S.W.3d 363 (Wright v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.