History
  • No items yet
midpage
Smith v. State
568 S.W.3d 61
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2019
|
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM

Paul Smith ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion. Movant claims his three-year sentence of imprisonment for stealing over $500 was unauthorized by law according to State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), which held that offense was not a felony, but was actually a misdemeanor. But Bazell was handed down after Movant's sentence was imposed, and as the State correctly pointed out to the motion court, Bazell cannot be applied retroactively, only prospectively, expect to cases pending on direct appeal, as determined in State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer , 530 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Mo. banc 2017). The motion court did not err by dismissing Movant's case on this ground. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. We affirm under Rule 84.16(b).

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. State
Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 13, 2019
Citation: 568 S.W.3d 61
Docket Number: No. ED 106670
Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.