Burns v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burns v. State

553 S.W.3d 900

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 14, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105533

StatusPublished

This text of 553 S.W.3d 900 (Burns 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

Burns v. State, 553 S.W.3d 900 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*901Michael Burns ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment, after an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of the class D felony of endangering a corrections employee, in violation of Section 565.085 (RSMo. 2000 ). Movant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment to be served consecutive to the time he was already serving at the time of the offense. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal in State v. Burns, 439 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). 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. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

PER CURIAM

*901Michael Burns ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's judgment, after an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of the class D felony of endangering a corrections employee, in violation of Section 565.085 (RSMo. 2000 ). Movant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment to be served consecutive to the time he was already serving at the time of the offense. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal in State v. Burns, 439 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). 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. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 S.W.3d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-state-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack