State v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Johnson

917 S.W.2d 627, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 369, 1996 WL 93780

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 1996

DocketNo. 66260

StatusPublished

This text of 917 S.W.2d 627 (State v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 917 S.W.2d 627, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 369, 1996 WL 93780 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Eddie Johnson appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for felony stealing, § 570.030, and for tampering in the first degree, § 569.080. The trial court sentenced defendant as a prior offender to two consecutive five year terms of imprisonment. He further appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. These appeals have been consolidated for review pursuant to Rule 29.15(1). We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[628]*628The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Eddie Johnson appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for felony stealing, § 570.030, and for tampering in the first degree, § 569.080. The trial court sentenced defendant as a prior offender to two consecutive five year terms of imprisonment. He further appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. These appeals have been consolidated for review pursuant to Rule 29.15(1). We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[628]*628The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

917 S.W.2d 627, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 369, 1996 WL 93780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-moctapp-1996.