Blackwell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blackwell v. State

45 S.W.3d 502, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 614, 2001 WL 345626

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77906

StatusPublished

This text of 45 S.W.3d 502 (Blackwell 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

Blackwell v. State, 45 S.W.3d 502, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 614, 2001 WL 345626 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Leroy Blackwell, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29 .15¹ motion. We have previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for first degree burglary under section 569.160, armed criminal action under section 571.015, unlawful use of a weapon under section 571.030.1(1), resisting arrest under section 575.150, and possession of a controlled substance under section 195.202. State v. Blackwell, 978 S.W.2d 475 (Mo.App.1998).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Movant, Leroy Blackwell, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29 .15¹ motion. We have previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for first degree burglary under section 569.160, armed criminal action under section 571.015, unlawful use of a weapon under section 571.030.1(1), resisting arrest under section 575.150, and possession of a controlled substance under section 195.202. State v. Blackwell, 978 S.W.2d 475 (Mo.App.1998).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.W.3d 502, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 614, 2001 WL 345626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackwell-v-state-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack