Brock v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Brock v. State

392 S.W.3d 534, 2013 WL 704472, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 252

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2013·No. No. ED 98288·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keith Brock (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Movant pleaded guilty to the charges of possession of a controlled substance in two cases in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, and received two concurrent ten-year sentences as a persistent drug offender. 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.

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.

Keith Brock (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Movant pleaded guilty to the charges of possession of a controlled substance in two cases in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, and received two concurrent ten-year sentences as a persistent drug offender. 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.

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

Brock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 534, 2013 WL 704472, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

392 S.W.3d 534 (Brock v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.