State v. Harris

870 S.W.2d 254, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 258

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Harris. Read the opinion of the Court — 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 298 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 15, 1994·No. Nos. 62722, 64230·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his convictions for first degree robbery, second degree assault, and armed criminal action. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

In his direct appeal, we find no error of law and affirm. We also believe no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and dispose of it by summary order. Rule 30.25(b).

In the appeal of the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, we find the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j); Rule 84.-16(b)(2). We further determine an opinion would have no precedential value and affirm by summary order. Rule 84.16(b). 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 first degree robbery, second degree assault, and armed criminal action. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

In his direct appeal, we find no error of law and affirm. We also believe no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and dispose of it by summary order. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Harris, 870 S.W.2d 254, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 258 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

870 S.W.2d 254 (State v. Harris) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.