Devine v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Devine v. State

160 S.W.3d 406, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 241, 2005 WL 415863

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 8, 2005

DocketED 83719

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 S.W.3d 406 (Devine 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

Devine v. State, 160 S.W.3d 406, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 241, 2005 WL 415863 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Devine (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. ■ Mov-ant was convicted of one count of robbery in the second degree, Section 569.030, RSMo 2000. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to twenty-five years imprisonment. Movant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by this Court. State v. Devine, 80 S.W.3d 480 (MoApp. E.D.2002). Subsequently, Mov-ant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the court denied after an evidentiary hearing on some of his claims.

Movant’s raises two points on appeal. First, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims of police and prosecutorial misconduct without an evidentiary hearing because these claims were cognizable under Rule 29.15 and resulted in a violation of Movant’s due process rights. In his second point on appeal, Movant alleges the motion court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to the admission of an audio tape containing an interview with the victim where she allegedly recanted her identification of Movant as her attacker.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Devine (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. ■ Mov-ant was convicted of one count of robbery in the second degree, Section 569.030, RSMo 2000. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to twenty-five years imprisonment. Movant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by this Court. State v. Devine, 80 S.W.3d 480 (MoApp. E.D.2002). Subsequently, Mov-ant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the court denied after an evidentiary hearing on some of his claims.

Movant’s raises two points on appeal. First, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in denying his claims of police and prosecutorial misconduct without an evidentiary hearing because these claims were cognizable under Rule 29.15 and resulted in a violation of Movant’s due process rights. In his second point on appeal, Movant alleges the motion court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to the admission of an audio tape containing an interview with the victim where she allegedly recanted her identification of Movant as her attacker.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.W.3d 406, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 241, 2005 WL 415863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devine-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack