State v. Armstrong

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Armstrong

880 S.W.2d 935, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1328, 1994 WL 424649

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Armstrong. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1374 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 16, 1994·No. No. 62965, 64407·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of twenty-four years for assault and three years for armed criminal action. Defendant also appeals from an order denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. However, Defendant has abandoned that appeal by failing to brief any errors pertaining to the denial of post-conviction relief.

With respect to Defendant’s direct appeal, no error of law appears and an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is 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.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of twenty-four years for assault and three years for armed criminal action. Defendant also appeals from an order denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. However, Defendant has abandoned that appeal by failing to brief any errors pertaining to the denial of post-conviction relief.

With respect to Defendant’s direct appeal, no error of law appears and an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

State v. Armstrong, 880 S.W.2d 935, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1328, 1994 WL 424649 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

880 S.W.2d 935 (State v. Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.