Banks v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Banks v. State

354 S.W.3d 671, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1693, 2011 WL 6616008

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

DocketED 95902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 354 S.W.3d 671 (Banks 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

Banks v. State, 354 S.W.3d 671, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1693, 2011 WL 6616008 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy R. Banks (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed Movant’s convictions, following a jury trial, for robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, in his direct appeal. State v. Banks, 285 S.W.3d 838 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Timothy R. Banks (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed Movant’s convictions, following a jury trial, for robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, in his direct appeal. State v. Banks, 285 S.W.3d 838 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 S.W.3d 671, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1693, 2011 WL 6616008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banks-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack