Finley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Finley v. State

190 S.W.3d 561, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 608, 2006 WL 1147650

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 86556

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 S.W.3d 561 (Finley 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

Finley v. State, 190 S.W.3d 561, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 608, 2006 WL 1147650 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tommy Leroy Finley (“Mov-ant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of one count of sexual assault, section 566.040, RSMo 2000, 1 and two counts of possession of a controlled substance, see *562 tion 195.202. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to twenty years of imprisonment for each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. These sentences were also to run consecutively with Movant’s federal prison sentence from another conviction. Movant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed in State v. Finley, 136 S.W.3d 823 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). 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 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tommy Leroy Finley (“Mov-ant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of one count of sexual assault, section 566.040, RSMo 2000, 1 and two counts of possession of a controlled substance, see *562 tion 195.202. Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to twenty years of imprisonment for each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. These sentences were also to run consecutively with Movant’s federal prison sentence from another conviction. Movant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed in State v. Finley, 136 S.W.3d 823 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). 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 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 561, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 608, 2006 WL 1147650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finley-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack