State v. Armstrong

925 S.W.2d 220, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1209, 1996 WL 380583
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 July 9, 1996·No. Nos. 66823, 68881·Published

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

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

925 S.W.2d 220 (State v. Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Nelson
818 S.W.2d 285 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)