Etenburn v. State

Charles Etenburn’s first Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion was denied. On appeal, we affirmed the motion court’s ruling. See Etenburn v. State, 341 S.W.3d 737 (Mo.App.2011).1 Our opinion explained why the plea court’s three written judgments had to be corrected because they deviated from the plea court’s oral pronouncement of Etenburn’s sentences:

Movant’s point is denied, and the motion court’s denial of Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. Nevertheless, when it is determined in a post-conviction relief case that a written sentence differs materially from the oral…