Silinzy v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Silinzy v. State

216 S.W.3d 705, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 436, 2006 WL 4114272

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

DocketNo. ED 88596

StatusPublished

This text of 216 S.W.3d 705 (Silinzy 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

Silinzy v. State, 216 S.W.3d 705, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 436, 2006 WL 4114272 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gary Silinzy (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentia-ry hearing, of Movant’s Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of first-degree assault, one count of first-degree burglary, one count of third-degree assault, and one count of armed criminal action.²

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gary Silinzy (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentia-ry hearing, of Movant’s Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of first-degree assault, one count of first-degree burglary, one count of third-degree assault, and one count of armed criminal action.²

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 S.W.3d 705, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 436, 2006 WL 4114272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silinzy-v-state-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack