Mason v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mason v. State

180 S.W.3d 1, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1653, 2005 WL 2979244

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 2005

DocketED 85669

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.W.3d 1 (Mason 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

Mason v. State, 180 S.W.3d 1, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1653, 2005 WL 2979244 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Avery Mason (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary, Section 569.160 RSMo 2000, and two counts of third degree assault, Section 565.070, RSMo 2000. Movant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment on the burglary charge and one year each on the assault charges, with the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

Avery Mason (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary, Section 569.160 RSMo 2000, and two counts of third degree assault, Section 565.070, RSMo 2000. Movant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment on the burglary charge and one year each on the assault charges, with the sentences to be served consecutively. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 1, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1653, 2005 WL 2979244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-state-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack