Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James B. GEITZ, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-04-08
Citations: 253 S.W.3d 583
Docket Number: No. ED 90188
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James B. GEITZ, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., ROY L. RICHTER, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 253
Pages: 583–583

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James B. GEITZ, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 90188.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
April 8, 2008.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 28, 2008.
James B. Geitz, Bowling Green, MO, pro se.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Cory Lee Atkins, Anna L. Bunch, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., ROY L. RICHTER, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant James B. Geitz (Geitz) appeals the trial court's partial denial of his nunc pro tunc order. The trial court granted the motion in part and corrected the handwritten Plea and Sentence filed on January 18, 1986 and the typewritten Sentence and Judgment dated January 13, 1986 to reflect the sodomy charge as an unclassified felony. The trial court declined to grant Geitz the relief he requested, to vacate the sodomy offense, because of a lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record of appeal and find the claims 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 prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).