Case ID: sw3d_533/html/0795-01.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

David R. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 105298
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
    Filed: November 21, 2017
    David R. Alexander, pro se.
    Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Defendant/Respondent.
    Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.'

David Alexander (“Appellant”) filed a motion pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(4) claiming that the court’s judgment on his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief was void. In Appellant’s sole point on appeal, Appellant claims the PCR judgment is void due to either the PCR motion court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or because the PCR motion court “acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” After reviewing the parties’ arguments and relevant case law, we find that the PCR court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Appellant’s claims, Appellant was not denied due process, and a motion under Rule 74.06(b)(4) is not available to challenge a PCR judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. Wé have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).