George v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

George v. State

262 S.W.3d 677, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1227, 2008 WL 4133871

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 2008

DocketED 90295

StatusPublished

This text of 262 S.W.3d 677 (George 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

George v. State, 262 S.W.3d 677, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1227, 2008 WL 4133871 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bruce George (Movant) appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 29.15 following an evidentiary hearing. The convictions sought to be vacated were for one count of robbery in the first-degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which Movant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the robbery conviction and three years imprisonment for the armed criminal action conviction. The robbery sentence and the armed criminal action sentence were set to run consecutively. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in overruling Movants motion for Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Reginald Davis as an alibi witness. 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. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the 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.

Bruce George (Movant) appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Rule 29.15 following an evidentiary hearing. The convictions sought to be vacated were for one count of robbery in the first-degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which Movant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the robbery conviction and three years imprisonment for the armed criminal action conviction. The robbery sentence and the armed criminal action sentence were set to run consecutively. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in overruling Movants motion for Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Reginald Davis as an alibi witness. 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. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 S.W.3d 677, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1227, 2008 WL 4133871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-v-state-moctapp-2008.