State v. James

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. James

959 S.W.2d 923, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 53

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 13, 1998

DocketNos. 69134, 71600

StatusPublished

This text of 959 S.W.2d 923 (State v. James) 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. James, 959 S.W.2d 923, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 53 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[924]*924 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals after sentencing on a charge of robbery first degree. He also appeals the denial of Rule 29.15 relief after an evidentiary hearing. The only two issues argued on appeal pertain to the direct appeal. The post conviction relief appeal has been abandoned and is denied.

The state offered evidence to support a finding that defendant, by the use of a handgun, took a van from the owner. The only defense evidence consisted of defendant’s testimony. He presented evidence which would have supported a finding that another individual whom he identified was therobber, the witness misidentified defendant and defendant was not present when the robbery occurred. The only two claims of error involve trial court decisions not to submit lesser included offense instructions for robbery second degree and stealing from a person. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The guilty verdict is supported by substantial evidence. We rejected identical legal arguments in State v. Lawshea, 798 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1990).

The sentence and denial of post conviction relief are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

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

[924]*924 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals after sentencing on a charge of robbery first degree. He also appeals the denial of Rule 29.15 relief after an evidentiary hearing. The only two issues argued on appeal pertain to the direct appeal. The post conviction relief appeal has been abandoned and is denied.

The state offered evidence to support a finding that defendant, by the use of a handgun, took a van from the owner. The only defense evidence consisted of defendant’s testimony. He presented evidence which would have supported a finding that another individual whom he identified was therobber, the witness misidentified defendant and defendant was not present when the robbery occurred. The only two claims of error involve trial court decisions not to submit lesser included offense instructions for robbery second degree and stealing from a person. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The guilty verdict is supported by substantial evidence. We rejected identical legal arguments in State v. Lawshea, 798 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1990).

The sentence and denial of post conviction relief are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

959 S.W.2d 923, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-james-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack