State v. Anderson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Anderson

848 S.W.2d 629, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 315, 1993 WL 59322

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 9, 1993

DocketNos. 59616 and 61807

StatusPublished

This text of 848 S.W.2d 629 (State v. Anderson) 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

State v. Anderson, 848 S.W.2d 629, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 315, 1993 WL 59322 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of four counts of first degree robbery in violation of § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and one count of attempted first degree robbery in violation of § 564.011, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to life imprisonment on each of the robbery counts and 15-years imprisonment on the attempted robbery count. The sentences are to be served concurrently. In addition to his direct appeal, he appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[630]*630The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of four counts of first degree robbery in violation of § 569.020, RSMo 1986, and one count of attempted first degree robbery in violation of § 564.011, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to life imprisonment on each of the robbery counts and 15-years imprisonment on the attempted robbery count. The sentences are to be served concurrently. In addition to his direct appeal, he appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[630]*630The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 S.W.2d 629, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 315, 1993 WL 59322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anderson-moctapp-1993.