Poindexter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Poindexter v. State

262 S.W.3d 678, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1223, 2008 WL 4133936

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 2008

DocketED 90486

StatusPublished

This text of 262 S.W.3d 678 (Poindexter 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

Poindexter v. State, 262 S.W.3d 678, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1223, 2008 WL 4133936 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Poindexter (Movant) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree assault, in violation of section 565.050 RSMo 2000, 1 and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015. Movant was sentenced as a prior offender to concurrent terms of thirty years for first-degree assault and ten years for armed criminal action. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Poindexter, 173 S.W.3d 926 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). Movant now appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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.

Maurice Poindexter (Movant) appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree assault, in violation of section 565.050 RSMo 2000, 1 and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015. Movant was sentenced as a prior offender to concurrent terms of thirty years for first-degree assault and ten years for armed criminal action. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Poindexter, 173 S.W.3d 926 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). Movant now appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 S.W.3d 678, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1223, 2008 WL 4133936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poindexter-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack