State v. Devoil

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Devoil

865 S.W.2d 896, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1880, 1993 WL 498745

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 7, 1993·No. Nos. 62554, 64017·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions, by a jury, of stealing from a person, § 570.030, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to a sixteen year prison term. Defendant 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. A written opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 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 convictions, by a jury, of stealing from a person, § 570.030, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to a sixteen year prison term. Defendant 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. A written opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b).

State v. Devoil, 865 S.W.2d 896, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1880, 1993 WL 498745 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

865 S.W.2d 896 (State v. Devoil) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related