State v. Hooker

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hooker

895 S.W.2d 260, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 460, 1995 WL 106517

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 14, 1995

DocketNos. 64040, 65616

StatusPublished

This text of 895 S.W.2d 260 (State v. Hooker) 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. Hooker, 895 S.W.2d 260, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 460, 1995 WL 106517 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered on his convictions by a jury of second degree murder, first degree assault, two counts of attempted first degree robbery and four counts of anned criminal action. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the murder conviction, twenty-five years imprisonment for the assault and armed criminal action convictions, and fifteen years for the attempted robbery convictions. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary ■ hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. Defendant failed to raise a point of error regarding his Rule 29.15 motion. Defendant’s appeal of this issue is, therefore, deemed abandoned and the motion court’s [261]*261judgment is affirmed. State v. Simmons, 861 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo.App.E.D.1993).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment entered on his convictions by a jury of second degree murder, first degree assault, two counts of attempted first degree robbery and four counts of anned criminal action. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for the murder conviction, twenty-five years imprisonment for the assault and armed criminal action convictions, and fifteen years for the attempted robbery convictions. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary ■ hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. Defendant failed to raise a point of error regarding his Rule 29.15 motion. Defendant’s appeal of this issue is, therefore, deemed abandoned and the motion court’s [261]*261judgment is affirmed. State v. Simmons, 861 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo.App.E.D.1993).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 S.W.2d 260, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 460, 1995 WL 106517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hooker-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack