Jackson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jackson v. State

331 S.W.3d 357, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 149, 2011 WL 533702

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 15, 2011

DocketED 94591

StatusPublished

This text of 331 S.W.3d 357 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 331 S.W.3d 357, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 149, 2011 WL 533702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricco Jackson, Jr. (Jackson) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his amended Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Jackson was convicted after he entered a guilty plea to robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, 1 and attempted tampering with a victim, in violation of Sections 575.270, 558.011, and 560.011. ..On appeal, Jackson argues that the facts alleged by the State and admitted by Jackson were insufficient to support a conviction of first-degree robbery. We affirm the motion court’s decision.

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 serve no jurisprudential purpose. 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).

1

. All subsequent statutory citations 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.

Ricco Jackson, Jr. (Jackson) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his amended Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Jackson was convicted after he entered a guilty plea to robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, 1 and attempted tampering with a victim, in violation of Sections 575.270, 558.011, and 560.011. ..On appeal, Jackson argues that the facts alleged by the State and admitted by Jackson were insufficient to support a conviction of first-degree robbery. We affirm the motion court’s decision.

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 serve no jurisprudential purpose. 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).

1

. All subsequent statutory citations are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 S.W.3d 357, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 149, 2011 WL 533702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-moctapp-2011.