State v. Jones

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jones

936 S.W.2d 878, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 42, 1997 WL 9946

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1997

DocketNos. 68074, 70147

StatusPublished

This text of 936 S.W.2d 878 (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, 936 S.W.2d 878, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 42, 1997 WL 9946 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of one count of the class C felony of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080, RSMo Supp.1992. The court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to a prison term of fifteen years. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

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 [879]*879opinion 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 after he was convicted by a jury of one count of the class C felony of tampering in the first degree, § 569.080, RSMo Supp.1992. The court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to a prison term of fifteen years. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

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 [879]*879opinion 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)

936 S.W.2d 878, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 42, 1997 WL 9946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-moctapp-1997.