State v. Jones

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jones

896 S.W.2d 504, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 725, 1995 WL 170703

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1995

DocketNos. 63551, 66189

StatusPublished

This text of 896 S.W.2d 504 (State v. Jones) 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. Jones, 896 S.W.2d 504, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 725, 1995 WL 170703 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury for one count of second degree murder, § 565.021, RSMo 1994, two counts of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1994, and three counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to consecutive terms of life imprisonment on each count. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We [505]*505affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury for one count of second degree murder, § 565.021, RSMo 1994, two counts of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1994, and three counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to consecutive terms of life imprisonment on each count. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We [505]*505affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

896 S.W.2d 504, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 725, 1995 WL 170703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-moctapp-1995.