State v. Clark

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Clark

899 S.W.2d 603, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 1995 WL 348927

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1995

DocketNos. 63885, 66142

StatusPublished

This text of 899 S.W.2d 603 (State v. Clark) 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. Clark, 899 S.W.2d 603, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 1995 WL 348927 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon her conviction by a jury of robbery in the second degree, § 569.030 RSMo 1994, for which she was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. However, Defendant has abandoned that appeal by failing to brief any errors pertaining to the denial of post-conviction relief.

With respect to Defendant’s direct appeal, no error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with 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 the judgment upon her conviction by a jury of robbery in the second degree, § 569.030 RSMo 1994, for which she was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. However, Defendant has abandoned that appeal by failing to brief any errors pertaining to the denial of post-conviction relief.

With respect to Defendant’s direct appeal, no error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 S.W.2d 603, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 1995 WL 348927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clark-moctapp-1995.