Cooper v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cooper v. State

213 S.W.3d 149, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1987, 2006 WL 3782937

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 26, 2006

DocketED 88073

StatusPublished

This text of 213 S.W.3d 149 (Cooper 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

Cooper v. State, 213 S.W.3d 149, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1987, 2006 WL 3782937 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Cooper (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to class B felony of robbery in the second degree. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties 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 would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

John Cooper (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant pleaded guilty to class B felony of robbery in the second degree. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties 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 would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 S.W.3d 149, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1987, 2006 WL 3782937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack