Allen v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Allen v. State

39 S.W.3d 75, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 423, 2001 WL 221656

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77997

StatusPublished

This text of 39 S.W.3d 75 (Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. State, 39 S.W.3d 75, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 423, 2001 WL 221656 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bernerie Allen, movant, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On direct appeal, we affirmed movant’s convictions and sentences for first degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo (1994), and first degree assault in violation of Section 565.050, RSMo 1994. State v. Allen, 954 S.W.2d 414 (Mo.App.1997).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bernerie Allen, movant, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. On direct appeal, we affirmed movant’s convictions and sentences for first degree robbery in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo (1994), and first degree assault in violation of Section 565.050, RSMo 1994. State v. Allen, 954 S.W.2d 414 (Mo.App.1997).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 S.W.3d 75, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 423, 2001 WL 221656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack