State v. Foster

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Foster

830 S.W.2d 474, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 623, 1992 WL 71678

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 14, 1992

DocketNos. 58143, 60244

StatusPublished

This text of 830 S.W.2d 474 (State v. Foster) 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. Foster, 830 S.W.2d 474, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 623, 1992 WL 71678 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Edward Foster, appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and armed criminal action, for which he was sentenced as a class X offender to consecutive sentences of 15 years and life, respectively. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the record on direct appeal. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.-25(b).

We have also reviewed the record with regard to the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Edward Foster, appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and armed criminal action, for which he was sentenced as a class X offender to consecutive sentences of 15 years and life, respectively. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the record on direct appeal. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.-25(b).

We have also reviewed the record with regard to the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

830 S.W.2d 474, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 623, 1992 WL 71678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foster-moctapp-1992.