Case ID: sw2d_903/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John G. HANEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 67340.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    June 20, 1995.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 27, 1995.
    
      David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John G. Haney, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County dismissing his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Appellant’s motion attacked neither his conviction nor his sentence, but rather attacked the legality of the circuit court’s revocation of his probation. A Rule 24.035 motion is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the legality of a court’s revocation of probation. Wood v. State, 853 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). The adoption of Rule 24.035 in place of Rule 27.26 does not change this rule. Id. The circuit court did not clearly err in dismissing appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion. Because an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).