Siggers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Siggers v. State

241 S.W.3d 830, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1600, 2007 WL 4105542

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 20, 2007

DocketED 88743

StatusPublished

This text of 241 S.W.3d 830 (Siggers 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

Siggers v. State, 241 S.W.3d 830, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1600, 2007 WL 4105542 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lee Siggers (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after a jury verdict convicting him of one count of forcible rape, in violation of Section 566.030 RSMo 2000, 1 two counts of forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060 and one count of kidnapping, in violation of Section 565.110. Movant was sentenced as a persistent offender to three consecutive life sentences, plus a consecu *831 tive fifteen-year sentence. Movant appeals the judgment denying Ms Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lee Siggers (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after a jury verdict convicting him of one count of forcible rape, in violation of Section 566.030 RSMo 2000, 1 two counts of forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060 and one count of kidnapping, in violation of Section 565.110. Movant was sentenced as a persistent offender to three consecutive life sentences, plus a consecu *831 tive fifteen-year sentence. Movant appeals the judgment denying Ms Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.W.3d 830, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1600, 2007 WL 4105542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siggers-v-state-moctapp-2007.