Rasche v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rasche v. State

41 S.W.3d 48, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 559, 2001 WL 314817

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 3, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77661

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 S.W.3d 48 (Rasche 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

Rasche v. State, 41 S.W.3d 48, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 559, 2001 WL 314817 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[49]*49ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, David Rasche, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion after an evidentiary hearing. On direct appeal, we affirmed Movant’s convictions and sentences for attempted forcible sodomy under Sections 566.060 and 564.011 and trespass in the first degree under Section 560.140. State v. Rasche, 985 S.W.2d 868 (Mo.App. E.D.1998).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion 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

[49]*49ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, David Rasche, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion after an evidentiary hearing. On direct appeal, we affirmed Movant’s convictions and sentences for attempted forcible sodomy under Sections 566.060 and 564.011 and trespass in the first degree under Section 560.140. State v. Rasche, 985 S.W.2d 868 (Mo.App. E.D.1998).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion 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)

41 S.W.3d 48, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 559, 2001 WL 314817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rasche-v-state-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack