Shelton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shelton v. State

505 S.W.3d 399, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1237, 2016 WL 6962085

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103843

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 399 (Shelton 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

Shelton v. State, 505 S.W.3d 399, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1237, 2016 WL 6962085 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Dwayne Shelton (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his post-conviction motion pursuant Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. Following a jury trial, Movant was found guilty of statutory sodomy, in violation of Section 566.062 (RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2008). Movant was sentenced as a persistent offender to 25 years imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. 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

Dwayne Shelton (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his post-conviction motion pursuant Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. Following a jury trial, Movant was found guilty of statutory sodomy, in violation of Section 566.062 (RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2008). Movant was sentenced as a persistent offender to 25 years imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.3d 399, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1237, 2016 WL 6962085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-state-moctapp-2016.