Morris-Bey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Morris-Bey v. State

28 S.W.3d 400, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1260, 2000 WL 1183076

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 2000

DocketNo. ED 77225

StatusPublished

This text of 28 S.W.3d 400 (Morris-Bey 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

Morris-Bey v. State, 28 S.W.3d 400, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1260, 2000 WL 1183076 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Jerome Morris-Bey appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant’s conviction for stealing, third offense, in violation of section 570.040, RSMo Cum.Supp.1999, on direct appeal. State v. Morris, 968 S.W.2d 473 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). In this appeal, Movant challenges his trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s statements during voir dire regarding the term “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties 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.

Movant Jerome Morris-Bey appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We previously affirmed Movant’s conviction for stealing, third offense, in violation of section 570.040, RSMo Cum.Supp.1999, on direct appeal. State v. Morris, 968 S.W.2d 473 (Mo.App. E.D. 1998). In this appeal, Movant challenges his trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s statements during voir dire regarding the term “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties 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)

28 S.W.3d 400, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1260, 2000 WL 1183076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-bey-v-state-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack