Case Name: Tyler R. PARKER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2019-03-05
Citations: 578 S.W.3d 820
Docket Number: No. ED 106871
Parties: Tyler R. PARKER, Movant/Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 578
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
Tyler R. PARKER, Movant/Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 106871
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
FILED: March 5, 2019
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Susan Alexander DeGeorge, Office of the State Public Defender, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Tyler R. Parker ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his amended Rule 24.035 motion, arguing that the five-year sentence of imprisonment he received for stealing over $500 was not permitted under State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), which held that stealing over $500 was a misdemeanor offense, not a felony. Bazell, however, was handed down after Movant was sentenced, and as the State argued to the motion court, Bazell applies only prospectively, and not retrospectively, except to cases pending on direct appeal, pursuant to State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, 530 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Mo. banc 2017). The motion court did not clearly err by denying Movant's amended Rule 24.035 motion on the basis that Bazell does not apply retrospectively to his case. The same has been held in Watson v. State, 545 S.W.3d 909, 915 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018), Abrams v. State, 550 S.W.3d 557, 558 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018), Bosworth v. State, 559 S.W.3d 5, 10 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018), Whittley v. State, 559 S.W.3d 401, 403-04 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018), and Harris v. State, 562 S.W.3d 363, 365 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018). An opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).