Bell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bell v. State

967 S.W.2d 189, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 426, 1998 WL 100354

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

DocketNo. 72775

StatusPublished

This text of 967 S.W.2d 189 (Bell 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

Bell v. State, 967 S.W.2d 189, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 426, 1998 WL 100354 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[190]*190 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Michael Bell pled guilty to first degree murder and armed criminal action in violation of Sections 565.020.1 RSMo 1994 and 571.015 RSMo 1994, respectively. Mov-ant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole on the first degree murder charge and life imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge, the sentences to run concurrently. Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Movant now appeals the motion court’s denial of his motion without reappointing counsel and without an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. However, we have provided the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[190]*190 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Michael Bell pled guilty to first degree murder and armed criminal action in violation of Sections 565.020.1 RSMo 1994 and 571.015 RSMo 1994, respectively. Mov-ant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole on the first degree murder charge and life imprisonment on the armed criminal action charge, the sentences to run concurrently. Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Movant now appeals the motion court’s denial of his motion without reappointing counsel and without an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. However, we have provided the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

967 S.W.2d 189, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 426, 1998 WL 100354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-moctapp-1998.