State v. Jackson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jackson

846 S.W.2d 252, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 146

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 2, 1993

DocketNos. 59487, 61461

StatusPublished

This text of 846 S.W.2d 252 (State v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 846 S.W.2d 252, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 146 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Mark Jackson, was convicted, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and abuse of a child. He was sentenced as a prior offender to consecutive terms of imprisonment of seven years on each count. He appeals from the judgment of conviction on each count. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed defendant’s direct appeal. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

We also reviewed defendant’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment in that proceeding is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court 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, Mark Jackson, was convicted, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree and abuse of a child. He was sentenced as a prior offender to consecutive terms of imprisonment of seven years on each count. He appeals from the judgment of conviction on each count. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed defendant’s direct appeal. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

We also reviewed defendant’s appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment in that proceeding is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

846 S.W.2d 252, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-moctapp-1993.