State v. Choate

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Choate

869 S.W.2d 862, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 151

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 1994

DocketNos. 61878, 63911

StatusPublished

This text of 869 S.W.2d 862 (State v. Choate) 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. Choate, 869 S.W.2d 862, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 151 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the trial court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to a thirty year prison term to run consecutively to all other sentences defendant was then serving. He also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. 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 his conviction, by a jury, of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the trial court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to a thirty year prison term to run consecutively to all other sentences defendant was then serving. He also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. 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)

869 S.W.2d 862, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-choate-moctapp-1994.