OTT LAW

Harry J. Riley, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Harry J. Riley, Movant/
Respondent
State of Missouri

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Harry J. Riley, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 72637 Handdown Date: 04/28/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Monroe County, Hon. John J. Jackson Counsel for Appellant: Irene Karns Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III, and Daniel G. Cierpiot Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Harry J. Riley appeals from the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Riley was charged by amended information with sodomy, Section 566.060, RSMo 1994, and first-degree sexual abuse, Section 566.100, RSMo 1994. He pled guilty to these charges on October 30, 1996, and was sentenced to a term of ten years and a term of five years, respectively. In a single point on appeal, Riley asserts that the court was without jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea because more than 180 days had elapsed since he filed his Request for Disposition of Detainers pursuant to the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law codified in Sections 217.450-217.485, RSMo 1994. After having reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, we find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.