Lyles v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lyles v. State

66 S.W.3d 46, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2369, 2001 WL 1402115

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 6, 2001

DocketNo. ED 79041

StatusPublished

This text of 66 S.W.3d 46 (Lyles 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

Lyles v. State, 66 S.W.3d 46, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2369, 2001 WL 1402115 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Lyles was convicted of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1994, attempted first degree robbery, § 564.011, RSMo 1994, and kidnapping, § 565.110, RSMo 1994, and sentenced to three concurrent terms of thirty years’ imprisonment. This court affirmed his conviction. State v. Lyles, 996 S.W.2d 713 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Lyles now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. Lyles alleges that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel in that his trial attorney failed to file a speedy trial motion and failed to object to an instruction that allegedly defined robbery improperly.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment 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.

Anthony Lyles was convicted of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1994, attempted first degree robbery, § 564.011, RSMo 1994, and kidnapping, § 565.110, RSMo 1994, and sentenced to three concurrent terms of thirty years’ imprisonment. This court affirmed his conviction. State v. Lyles, 996 S.W.2d 713 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Lyles now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. Lyles alleges that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel in that his trial attorney failed to file a speedy trial motion and failed to object to an instruction that allegedly defined robbery improperly.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 S.W.3d 46, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2369, 2001 WL 1402115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyles-v-state-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack