State v. Hansson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hansson

866 S.W.2d 145, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1732, 1993 WL 453614

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 9, 1993·No. Nos. 61535, 63172·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions for kidnapping and armed criminal action and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

We further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion in Defendant’s direct appeal. Rule 30.25(b). Nor would an opinion in Defendant’s appeal of his rule 29.15 motion have precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). Therefore, we affirm [146]*146by order. We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions for kidnapping and armed criminal action and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

We further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion in Defendant’s direct appeal. Rule 30.25(b). Nor would an opinion in Defendant’s appeal of his rule 29.15 motion have precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). Therefore, we affirm [146]*146by order. We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their use only.

State v. Hansson, 866 S.W.2d 145, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1732, 1993 WL 453614 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

866 S.W.2d 145 (State v. Hansson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related