Newcomb v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Newcomb v. State

16 S.W.3d 717, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 445, 2000 WL 309986

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 2000

DocketNo. ED 76392

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.W.3d 717 (Newcomb 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

Newcomb v. State, 16 S.W.3d 717, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 445, 2000 WL 309986 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Algie Newcomb was convicted of first degree assault, section 565.050, RSMo 1994, attempted rape, sections 564.011 & 566.030, RSMo 1994, and forcible sodomy, section 566.060, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to three consecutive terms of 25 years’ imprisonment. Movant appealed and this Court affirmed his convictions in State v. Newcomb, 934 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. App. E.D.1996). Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing.

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 opinion 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 Algie Newcomb was convicted of first degree assault, section 565.050, RSMo 1994, attempted rape, sections 564.011 & 566.030, RSMo 1994, and forcible sodomy, section 566.060, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to three consecutive terms of 25 years’ imprisonment. Movant appealed and this Court affirmed his convictions in State v. Newcomb, 934 S.W.2d 608 (Mo. App. E.D.1996). Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing.

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 opinion 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)

16 S.W.3d 717, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 445, 2000 WL 309986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newcomb-v-state-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack