State v. Lawrence, ED 78151.
| Decision Date | 23 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 78151.,ED 78151. |
| Citation | 33 S.W.3d 587 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward LAWRENCE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Edward Lawrence, Mineral Point, pro se.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Susan K. Glass, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, P.J., MARY RHODES RUSSELL and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 21, 2000.
Edward Lawrence, acting pro se, appeals from the trial court's judgment denying his "Petition For Nunc Pro Tunc Order." Appellant's petition alleged that his conviction of a double homicide in 1984 was invalid and should be set aside, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed in the matter or to enter judgment convicting and sentencing him on the charges, in that the State's indictment against him had incorrectly joined a count of Murder in the First Degree with a count of Capital Murder, in violation of the version of Supreme Court Rule 23.05 which was in effect at the time and which provided that no capital murder could be charged in the same indictment or information with any other offense. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value and serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, prepared a memorandum for the parties explaining the reasons for this order. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lawrence
...v. State, 750 S.W.2d 505 (Mo.App.1988). We also affirmed the denial of his first motion for a nunc pro tunc order. State v. Lawrence, 33 S.W.3d 587 (Mo.App.2000). Appellant filed another motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order on May 19, 2003. His motion alleged that the trial court in which h......
-
State v. Lawrence, ED 102991
...v. State, 750 S.W.2d 505 (Mo.App.E.D. 1988), affirmed the denial of his first motion for a nunc pro tunc order in State v. Lawrence, 33 S.W.3d 587 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000) and dismissed his untimely appeal from the denial of his second motion for a nunc pro tunc order in State v. Lawrence, 139 S.......
-
VERSCHOORE v. THOELE, INC.
... ... Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent ... Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and GEORGE W. DRAPER, JJ ... Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to ... ...