State v. Cole

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cole

887 S.W.2d 687, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1557, 1994 WL 533786

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 4, 1994

DocketNos. 61616, 64326

StatusPublished

This text of 887 S.W.2d 687 (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, 887 S.W.2d 687, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1557, 1994 WL 533786 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape, § 566.030, RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent sexual offender to three consecutive thirty year sentences to be served without probation or parole, § 558.018, RSMo Supp.1993. 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 [688]*688for 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 was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape, § 566.030, RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent sexual offender to three consecutive thirty year sentences to be served without probation or parole, § 558.018, RSMo Supp.1993. 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 [688]*688for 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)

887 S.W.2d 687, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1557, 1994 WL 533786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cole-moctapp-1994.