Bruce v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bruce v. State

787 S.W.2d 868, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 561, 1990 WL 41640

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 1990

DocketNo. 57125

StatusPublished

This text of 787 S.W.2d 868 (Bruce 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

Bruce v. State, 787 S.W.2d 868, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 561, 1990 WL 41640 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Bruce, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant was convicted by a jury on February 25, 1982, of one count each of kidnapping and forcible rape. Appellant was sentenced by the court to a term of 30 years imprisonment for kidnapping and a consecutive term of 50 years for rape, as a persistent sexual offender.

Appellant filed a timely Rule 29.15 pro se motion on March 31, 1988, which was not amended by counsel. The motion court denied appellant relief without a hearing on June 19, 1989. We have reviewed appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the entirety of the record upon which they are based, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. We do not find these findings to be clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j); Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Mo. banc 1989). We also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value and, therefore, we affirm the motion court’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, which sets forth the basis of our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Bruce, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant was convicted by a jury on February 25, 1982, of one count each of kidnapping and forcible rape. Appellant was sentenced by the court to a term of 30 years imprisonment for kidnapping and a consecutive term of 50 years for rape, as a persistent sexual offender.

Appellant filed a timely Rule 29.15 pro se motion on March 31, 1988, which was not amended by counsel. The motion court denied appellant relief without a hearing on June 19, 1989. We have reviewed appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the entirety of the record upon which they are based, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. We do not find these findings to be clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j); Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Mo. banc 1989). We also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value and, therefore, we affirm the motion court’s decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, which sets forth the basis of our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 S.W.2d 868, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 561, 1990 WL 41640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruce-v-state-moctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack