Jessup v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jessup v. State

342 S.W.3d 365, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 761, 2011 WL 2201043

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketED 95264

StatusPublished

This text of 342 S.W.3d 365 (Jessup 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

Jessup v. State, 342 S.W.3d 365, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 761, 2011 WL 2201043 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carl A. Jessup (hereinafter, “Movant”) pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree, Section 565.050 RSMo (2000), and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of fifteen years’ imprisonment on the assault count and ten years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action count. Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises one point on appeal, alleging the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because there was an insufficient factual basis to establish Movant committed armed criminal action.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law, and the motion court’s judgment was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carl A. Jessup (hereinafter, “Movant”) pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree, Section 565.050 RSMo (2000), and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of fifteen years’ imprisonment on the assault count and ten years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action count. Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant raises one point on appeal, alleging the motion court erred in denying his post-conviction motion because there was an insufficient factual basis to establish Movant committed armed criminal action.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find no error of law, and the motion court’s judgment was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 365, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 761, 2011 WL 2201043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jessup-v-state-moctapp-2011.