Battle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Battle v. State

93 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 25, 2003 WL 105131

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 2003

DocketNo. ED 80534

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 S.W.3d 854 (Battle 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

Battle v. State, 93 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 25, 2003 WL 105131 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ernest Battle (“movant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant seeks to vacate his convictions and sentences for murder in the first degree, section 565.020 RSMo 1994,¹ and armed criminal action, section 571.015. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder in the first degree and a concurrent term of life imprisonment for armed criminal action. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ernest Battle (“movant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant seeks to vacate his convictions and sentences for murder in the first degree, section 565.020 RSMo 1994,¹ and armed criminal action, section 571.015. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder in the first degree and a concurrent term of life imprisonment for armed criminal action. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.W.3d 854, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 25, 2003 WL 105131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battle-v-state-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack