Johnson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. State

185 S.W.3d 800, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 286, 2006 WL 616046

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 14, 2006

DocketNo. WD 64792

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.W.3d 800 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 185 S.W.3d 800, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 286, 2006 WL 616046 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gerald L. Johnson appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for relief from his convictions by a Jackson County jury on one count of the class A felony of murder in the second degree, § 565.021.1(2); one count of the class A felony of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020; the class D felony of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, § 577.060; and the unclassified felony of armed criminal action, § 571.015. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gerald L. Johnson appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for relief from his convictions by a Jackson County jury on one count of the class A felony of murder in the second degree, § 565.021.1(2); one count of the class A felony of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020; the class D felony of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, § 577.060; and the unclassified felony of armed criminal action, § 571.015. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.W.3d 800, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 286, 2006 WL 616046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-moctapp-2006.