Case Name: David R. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-11-21
Citations: 533 S.W.3d 795
Docket Number: No. ED 105298
Parties: David R. ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 533
Pages: 795–795

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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).