Mayhorn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mayhorn v. State

180 S.W.3d 49, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1866, 2005 WL 3470342

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 86158

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.W.3d 49 (Mayhorn 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

Mayhorn v. State, 180 S.W.3d 49, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1866, 2005 WL 3470342 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Movant of one count of second-degree drug trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223 RSMo 2000. The trial court sentenced Movant, as a prior offender, to five years’ imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Movant appealed the judgment of his conviction and sentence in case number ED84116 but subsequently voluntarily dismissed his appeal. Movant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions, pursuant to Rule 29.15, and waived an evidentiary hearing.

*50 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. The motion court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

A jury convicted Movant of one count of second-degree drug trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223 RSMo 2000. The trial court sentenced Movant, as a prior offender, to five years’ imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Movant appealed the judgment of his conviction and sentence in case number ED84116 but subsequently voluntarily dismissed his appeal. Movant thereafter timely filed his pro se and amended motions, pursuant to Rule 29.15, and waived an evidentiary hearing.

*50 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. The motion court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 49, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1866, 2005 WL 3470342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayhorn-v-state-moctapp-2005.