Johnson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. State

213 S.W.3d 184, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 161, 2007 WL 220192

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 2007

DocketED 87666

StatusPublished

This text of 213 S.W.3d 184 (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, 213 S.W.3d 184, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 161, 2007 WL 220192 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Carl Johnson (“Movant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of one count of burglary in the second degree, section 569.170, RSMo 2000 (“Count I”), 1 one count of misdemeanor stealing, section 570.030 (“Count II”), and one count of misdemeanor making a false declaration, section 575.060 (“Count III”). Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to sixteen years’ imprisonment on Count I, one year imprisonment on Count II, and thirty days’ imprisonment on Count III, with the sentences to run concurrently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

1

. All statutory 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.

Appellant, Carl Johnson (“Movant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of one count of burglary in the second degree, section 569.170, RSMo 2000 (“Count I”), 1 one count of misdemeanor stealing, section 570.030 (“Count II”), and one count of misdemeanor making a false declaration, section 575.060 (“Count III”). Movant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to sixteen years’ imprisonment on Count I, one year imprisonment on Count II, and thirty days’ imprisonment on Count III, with the sentences to run concurrently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 S.W.3d 184, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 161, 2007 WL 220192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack