State v. Cole

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cole

854 S.W.2d 834, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 833, 1993 WL 189567

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1993

DocketNos. 60078, 61953

StatusPublished

This text of 854 S.W.2d 834 (State v. Cole) 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. Cole, 854 S.W.2d 834, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 833, 1993 WL 189567 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his convictions by a jury of robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action and concurrent sentences of 30 years for each offense as a persistent offender. He also appeals from denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following evidentiary hearing. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, no error of law appears, the judgment on the Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous, and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. A written statement of the reasons for our affirmance has been furnished to the parties. Judgment of conviction affirmed in conformity with Rule 30.25(b). Denial of Rule 29.15 motion affirmed in conformity with Rule 84.16(b). Defendant's motion for new trial premised on disappearance of some exhibits denied.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his convictions by a jury of robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action and concurrent sentences of 30 years for each offense as a persistent offender. He also appeals from denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following evidentiary hearing. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, no error of law appears, the judgment on the Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous, and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. A written statement of the reasons for our affirmance has been furnished to the parties. Judgment of conviction affirmed in conformity with Rule 30.25(b). Denial of Rule 29.15 motion affirmed in conformity with Rule 84.16(b). Defendant's motion for new trial premised on disappearance of some exhibits denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

854 S.W.2d 834, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 833, 1993 WL 189567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cole-moctapp-1993.