State v. Costello

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Costello

945 S.W.2d 619, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 925, 1997 WL 259004

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 1997

DocketNos. 67733, 70474

StatusPublished

This text of 945 S.W.2d 619 (State v. Costello) 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. Costello, 945 S.W.2d 619, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 925, 1997 WL 259004 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ervin Costello (Costello) appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury of burglary in the first degree, § 569.160 RSMo 1986, and assault in the third degree, § 565.070 RSMo 1986.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential or jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Costello also appeals from the denial of part of his 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The motion court granted his motion in part when it issued an order finding that the written judgment must be corrected by the removal of any reference to sentenc-[620]*620mg him as a minimum term offender because the sentencing court never mentioned that he was being sentenced to a minimum term under § 558.019. The state does not appeal the removal of language which sentences Costello to a minimum sentence. Costello appeals from the denial of his 29.15 motion in regard to all other issues raised.

However, Costello fails to raise any points on appeal relating to his Rule 29.15 motion. Where a movant appeals the denial of a 29.15 motion, but fails to raise any points related to the denial of that motion in the brief on appeal, the appeal is considered abandoned. State v. Link, 916 S.W.2d 385, 386 n.1 (Mo. App.1996); State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991).

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ervin Costello (Costello) appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury of burglary in the first degree, § 569.160 RSMo 1986, and assault in the third degree, § 565.070 RSMo 1986.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential or jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Costello also appeals from the denial of part of his 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The motion court granted his motion in part when it issued an order finding that the written judgment must be corrected by the removal of any reference to sentenc-[620]*620mg him as a minimum term offender because the sentencing court never mentioned that he was being sentenced to a minimum term under § 558.019. The state does not appeal the removal of language which sentences Costello to a minimum sentence. Costello appeals from the denial of his 29.15 motion in regard to all other issues raised.

However, Costello fails to raise any points on appeal relating to his Rule 29.15 motion. Where a movant appeals the denial of a 29.15 motion, but fails to raise any points related to the denial of that motion in the brief on appeal, the appeal is considered abandoned. State v. Link, 916 S.W.2d 385, 386 n.1 (Mo. App.1996); State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991).

The motion court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

945 S.W.2d 619, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 925, 1997 WL 259004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-costello-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack