King v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

King v. State

364 S.W.3d 260, 2012 WL 1242531, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 467

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2012

DocketED 95496-01

StatusPublished

This text of 364 S.W.3d 260 (King 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

King v. State, 364 S.W.3d 260, 2012 WL 1242531, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 467 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antoine King (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order (judgment) denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, on his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, one count of first-degree robbery, and one count of first-degree assault. We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

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. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antoine King (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order (judgment) denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Judgment, filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, on his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, one count of first-degree robbery, and one count of first-degree assault. We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

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. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 260, 2012 WL 1242531, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-moctapp-2012.