Burage v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burage v. State

157 S.W.3d 268, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 18, 2005 WL 43143

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 11, 2005

DocketED 84525

StatusPublished

This text of 157 S.W.3d 268 (Burage 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

Burage v. State, 157 S.W.3d 268, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 18, 2005 WL 43143 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tracy M. Burage (“Movant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his motion to reopen his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of one count of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020 RSMo (1994), 1 and one count of armed criminal action, section 571.015. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to thirty years imprisonment on each count to run consecutively. We previously affirmed the motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tracy M. Burage (“Movant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his motion to reopen his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of one count of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020 RSMo (1994), 1 and one count of armed criminal action, section 571.015. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to thirty years imprisonment on each count to run consecutively. We previously affirmed the motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 268, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 18, 2005 WL 43143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burage-v-state-moctapp-2005.