From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dobbs v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Mar 6, 2018
546 S.W.3d 612 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

No. ED 105549

03-06-2018

Frankie DOBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Samuel Buffaloe, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg 7, Ste 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for appellant. Joshua Hawley, Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.


Samuel Buffaloe, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg 7, Ste 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for appellant.

Joshua Hawley, Shaun J. Mackelprang, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Frankie Dobbs ("Dobbs") appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 24.035 motion seeking post-conviction relief. Dobbs pleaded guilty to a class C felony, pursuant to Section 570.030.3, for stealing a motor vehicle. On appeal, Dobbs argues that, pursuant to State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), his sentence should have been based on a class A misdemeanor, not a class C felony. Because Bazell does not apply retroactively to Dobbs’s plea and sentencing, we affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have 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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Dobbs v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.
Mar 6, 2018
546 S.W.3d 612 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)
Case details for

Dobbs v. State

Case Details

Full title:Frankie DOBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Date published: Mar 6, 2018

Citations

546 S.W.3d 612 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)

Citing Cases

Bosworth v. State

As was the case with the habeas petitioner in Windeknecht, the Rule 24.035 movants in Watson and…