Rotellini v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rotellini v. State

99 S.W.3d 495, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 328, 2003 WL 942744

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 11, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81370

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.W.3d 495 (Rotellini 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

Rotellini v. State, 99 S.W.3d 495, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 328, 2003 WL 942744 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin S. Rotellini (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of one count of stealing a credit card and one count of stealing over $150 in violation of Section 570.030 RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced Movant, as a prior and persistent offender, to two concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment. We affirmed Movant’s convictions on direct appeal. State v. Rotellini, 2 S.W.3d 843 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Thereafter, Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied following an evidentia-ry hearing. On appeal, this Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part because the motion court failed to issue specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on an issue before the motion court. Rotellini v. State, 77 S.W.3d 632 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). This appeal follows the motion court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law on remand denying Movant’s request for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming 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.

Kevin S. Rotellini (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of one count of stealing a credit card and one count of stealing over $150 in violation of Section 570.030 RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced Movant, as a prior and persistent offender, to two concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment. We affirmed Movant’s convictions on direct appeal. State v. Rotellini, 2 S.W.3d 843 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Thereafter, Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied following an evidentia-ry hearing. On appeal, this Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part because the motion court failed to issue specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on an issue before the motion court. Rotellini v. State, 77 S.W.3d 632 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). This appeal follows the motion court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law on remand denying Movant’s request for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.W.3d 495, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 328, 2003 WL 942744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotellini-v-state-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack