State v. Gibbs

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gibbs

868 S.W.2d 558, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 102

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 1994

DocketNos. 61312, 63587

StatusPublished

This text of 868 S.W.2d 558 (State v. Gibbs) 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. Gibbs, 868 S.W.2d 558, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 102 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Rayvon S. Gibbs, appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action. He was sentenced to imprisonment for twelve years on the robbery charge and for fifty years on the armed criminal action charge to be served consecutively. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion on defendant’s direct appeal. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion [559]*559would 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, Rayvon S. Gibbs, appeals from his convictions, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action. He was sentenced to imprisonment for twelve years on the robbery charge and for fifty years on the armed criminal action charge to be served consecutively. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion on defendant’s direct appeal. Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion [559]*559would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

868 S.W.2d 558, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gibbs-moctapp-1994.