Revels v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Revels v. State

354 S.W.3d 674, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1702, 2011 WL 6638292

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 20, 2011·No. ED 96492·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jay Revels (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed Movant’s convictions, following a jury trial, in his direct appeal, State v. Revels, 177 S.W.3d 865 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Jay Revels (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed Movant’s convictions, following a jury trial, in his direct appeal, State v. Revels, 177 S.W.3d 865 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Revels v. State, 354 S.W.3d 674, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1702, 2011 WL 6638292 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

354 S.W.3d 674 (Revels v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related