Cody v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cody v. State

255 S.W.3d 535, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 802, 2008 WL 2421052

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 2008

DocketED 89977

StatusPublished

This text of 255 S.W.3d 535 (Cody 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

Cody v. State, 255 S.W.3d 535, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 802, 2008 WL 2421052 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Cody (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial, following an eviden-tiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In Movant’s direct appeal, the Court affirmed his convictions, following a jury trial, on two consolidated cases, one of which arose out of events occurring on February 23, 2002, charging him with forcible rape, four counts of forcible sodomy, kidnapping, and sexual abuse; and the other of which arose out of events occurring on May 23, 2002, charging him with attempted forcible rape, felonious restraint, and second-degree robbery. State v. Cody, 155 S.W.3d 772 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information 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.

James Cody (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial, following an eviden-tiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In Movant’s direct appeal, the Court affirmed his convictions, following a jury trial, on two consolidated cases, one of which arose out of events occurring on February 23, 2002, charging him with forcible rape, four counts of forcible sodomy, kidnapping, and sexual abuse; and the other of which arose out of events occurring on May 23, 2002, charging him with attempted forcible rape, felonious restraint, and second-degree robbery. State v. Cody, 155 S.W.3d 772 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information 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)

255 S.W.3d 535, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 802, 2008 WL 2421052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cody-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack