Sitzes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sitzes v. State

731 S.W.2d 372, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3959

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 21, 1987·No. No. 52044·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The Motion challenged his sentence of fifteen years after having been found guilty of second degree burglary. The sentence was to run consecutively with two concurrent five year sentences previously imposed.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial court 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

PER CURIAM:

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The Motion challenged his sentence of fifteen years after having been found guilty of second degree burglary. The sentence was to run consecutively with two concurrent five year sentences previously imposed.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Sitzes v. State, 731 S.W.2d 372, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3959 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

731 S.W.2d 372 (Sitzes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.