Ming v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ming v. State

198 S.W.3d 657, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1244, 2006 WL 2405068

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 2006

DocketED 86742

StatusPublished

This text of 198 S.W.3d 657 (Ming 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

Ming v. State, 198 S.W.3d 657, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1244, 2006 WL 2405068 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ernest Ming (“Movant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was found guilty, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, section 565.021, RSMo 2000, 1 two counts of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020, and three counts of armed criminal action, section 571.015. 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 of the motion court 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, Ernest Ming (“Movant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was found guilty, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, section 565.021, RSMo 2000, 1 two counts of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020, and three counts of armed criminal action, section 571.015. 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 of the motion court 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)

198 S.W.3d 657, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1244, 2006 WL 2405068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ming-v-state-moctapp-2006.