State v. Armstrong

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Armstrong

925 S.W.2d 220, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1209, 1996 WL 380583

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 9, 1996

DocketNos. 66823, 68881

StatusPublished

This text of 925 S.W.2d 220 (State v. Armstrong) 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. Armstrong, 925 S.W.2d 220, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1209, 1996 WL 380583 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after, he was convicted following a bench trial of one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo Supp.1993. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Defendant addresses no points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief; that appeal is considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to 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 after, he was convicted following a bench trial of one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo Supp.1993. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Defendant addresses no points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief; that appeal is considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

925 S.W.2d 220, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1209, 1996 WL 380583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-armstrong-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack