State v. Brown

131 S.W.3d 856, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 537, 2004 WL 770217
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Brown. Read the opinion of the Court — 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2353
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 13, 2004·No. No. ED 83138·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

We previously affirmed Frederick H. Brown’s first degree assault and armed criminal action convictions on direct appeal and affirmed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. State v. Brown, 871 S.W.2d 136 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). He now appeals the judgment denying his “Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order” in which he alleged the trial court erred in finding him to be a persistent offender.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

State v. Brown, 131 S.W.3d 856, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 537, 2004 WL 770217 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

131 S.W.3d 856 (State v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Brown
871 S.W.2d 136 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)