Rice v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rice v. State

472 S.W.3d 655, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1066, 2015 WL 6161248

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102341

StatusPublished

This text of 472 S.W.3d 655 (Rice 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

Rice v. State, 472 S.W.3d 655, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1066, 2015 WL 6161248 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

[656]*656 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Antonio Rice (“Rice”) was convicted in the St. Charles County Circuit Court of first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, and two associated counts of armed criminal action. Rice appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Appellant’s only point on appeal is that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutors closing argument, which focused on the safety of the community and the need to put the defendants away.

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 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

[656]*656 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Antonio Rice (“Rice”) was convicted in the St. Charles County Circuit Court of first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, and two associated counts of armed criminal action. Rice appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Appellant’s only point on appeal is that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutors closing argument, which focused on the safety of the community and the need to put the defendants away.

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 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)

472 S.W.3d 655, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1066, 2015 WL 6161248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-state-moctapp-2015.