Mueller v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mueller v. State

486 S.W.3d 494, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 94, 2016 WL 519840

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102456

StatusPublished

This text of 486 S.W.3d 494 (Mueller 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

Mueller v. State, 486 S.W.3d 494, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 94, 2016 WL 519840 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

A jury convicted James Mueller (“Muel-lér”) of two counts of forcible sodomy, two counts of forcible rape, one count of attempted forcible sodomy, and five associated counts of armed criminal action. Mueller now appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Mueller claims that the.motion court clearly erred for three reasons.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no [495]*495error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with 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 James Mueller (“Muel-lér”) of two counts of forcible sodomy, two counts of forcible rape, one count of attempted forcible sodomy, and five associated counts of armed criminal action. Mueller now appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Mueller claims that the.motion court clearly erred for three reasons.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no [495]*495error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 S.W.3d 494, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 94, 2016 WL 519840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-state-moctapp-2016.