Moore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. State

131 S.W.3d 866, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 557, 2004 WL 834204

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moore v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1899 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 20, 2004·No. No. ED 83104·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Janiece Moore (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing following her conviction for first-degree assault and felonious restraint. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of 25 years for the assault and five years for felonious restraint. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that Movant’s point has no merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, [867]*867provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Janiece Moore (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing following her conviction for first-degree assault and felonious restraint. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of 25 years for the assault and five years for felonious restraint. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that Movant’s point has no merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, [867]*867provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Moore v. State, 131 S.W.3d 866, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 557, 2004 WL 834204 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

131 S.W.3d 866 (Moore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.