Frost v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Frost v. State

200 S.W.3d 561, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1308, 2006 WL 2529501

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 5, 2006

DocketED 86949

StatusPublished

This text of 200 S.W.3d 561 (Frost 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

Frost v. State, 200 S.W.3d 561, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1308, 2006 WL 2529501 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Frost (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief (motion) after an evidentiary hearing. A jury found Movant guilty of one count of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced Movant to two terms of life imprisonment for the murder and robbery counts and to a thirty-year term of imprisonment for each of the armed criminal action counts, all sentences to run concurrently. Movant appealed the judgment of his conviction and sentence, and this Court affirmed in State v. Frost, 131 S.W.3d 845 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Movant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions, pursuant to Rule 29.15, alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. This appeal follows.

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 have no prec-edential value. 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.

John Frost (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief (motion) after an evidentiary hearing. A jury found Movant guilty of one count of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action. The trial court sentenced Movant to two terms of life imprisonment for the murder and robbery counts and to a thirty-year term of imprisonment for each of the armed criminal action counts, all sentences to run concurrently. Movant appealed the judgment of his conviction and sentence, and this Court affirmed in State v. Frost, 131 S.W.3d 845 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). Movant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions, pursuant to Rule 29.15, alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. This appeal follows.

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 have no prec-edential value. 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)

200 S.W.3d 561, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1308, 2006 WL 2529501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frost-v-state-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack