Gray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gray v. State

157 S.W.3d 326, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 642, 2005 WL 405975

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

DocketED 84516

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 326 (Gray 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

Gray v. State, 157 S.W.3d 326, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 642, 2005 WL 405975 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patrick Gray (“Movant”) appeals from motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief. A jury convicted Movant of statutory rape of his daughter, E.W., in the first degree, Section 566.032; 2 and armed criminal action, Section 571.015. The trial court found Movant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced Movant to two concurrent life sentences. Movant appealed the judgment of his conviction and sentence and this Court affirmed. State v. Gray, 46 S.W.3d 583 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). Movant, on September 19, 2001 timely filed his pro se motion for post-conviction relief. On March 3, 2003, Movant filed an amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment and sentence. The motion court issued conclusions of law and denied Movant’s motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 29.15.

1

. All references are to Mo. Rules Civ. P.2004 unless otherwise indicated.

2

. All 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.

Patrick Gray (“Movant”) appeals from motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief. A jury convicted Movant of statutory rape of his daughter, E.W., in the first degree, Section 566.032; 2 and armed criminal action, Section 571.015. The trial court found Movant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced Movant to two concurrent life sentences. Movant appealed the judgment of his conviction and sentence and this Court affirmed. State v. Gray, 46 S.W.3d 583 (Mo.App. E.D.2001). Movant, on September 19, 2001 timely filed his pro se motion for post-conviction relief. On March 3, 2003, Movant filed an amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment and sentence. The motion court issued conclusions of law and denied Movant’s motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 29.15.

1

. All references are to Mo. Rules Civ. P.2004 unless otherwise indicated.

2

. All references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 326, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 642, 2005 WL 405975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack