State v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Brown

16 S.W.3d 678, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 2000 WL 228352

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 29, 2000

DocketNos. ED 69440, ED 75268

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.W.3d 678 (State v. Brown) 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. Brown, 16 S.W.3d 678, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 2000 WL 228352 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Brown, Defendant, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.081.1 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to life in prison; second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.082 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to life in prison; armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 30 years in prison; first-degree tampering in violation of Section 569.080 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison; and first-degree property damage in violation of Section 569.100 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison; all sentences are to run consecutively. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying on the merits, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

As to the direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

As to the post-conviction appeal, the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Brown, Defendant, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.081.1 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to life in prison; second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.082 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to life in prison; armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 30 years in prison; first-degree tampering in violation of Section 569.080 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison; and first-degree property damage in violation of Section 569.100 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison; all sentences are to run consecutively. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying on the merits, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

As to the direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

As to the post-conviction appeal, the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.W.3d 678, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 2000 WL 228352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-moctapp-2000.