State v. Eccher

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Eccher

905 S.W.2d 913, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1569

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 19, 1995

DocketNos. 66848, 68045

StatusPublished

This text of 905 S.W.2d 913 (State v. Eccher) 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. Eccher, 905 S.W.2d 913, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1569 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury for possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202.2, RSMol994. The court sentenced him in accordance with the jury’s assessment to a prison term of six years. Defendant also appeals the denial, for untimely filing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Defendant’s Rule 29.25 motion was properly denied; the time limits contained in Rule 29.15 are valid, reasonable, and mandatory. State v. Stewart, 811 S.W.2d 805, 809 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for 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 appeals his conviction by a jury for possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202.2, RSMol994. The court sentenced him in accordance with the jury’s assessment to a prison term of six years. Defendant also appeals the denial, for untimely filing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Defendant’s Rule 29.25 motion was properly denied; the time limits contained in Rule 29.15 are valid, reasonable, and mandatory. State v. Stewart, 811 S.W.2d 805, 809 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for 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)

905 S.W.2d 913, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-eccher-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack