State v. King

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. King

891 S.W.2d 584, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 154, 1995 WL 34230

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. King. Read the opinion of the Court — 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 633 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 31, 1995·No. Nos. 64399, 65842·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury for rape, § 566.030.3, RSMoSupp.1990, and sodomy, § 566.060.3, RSMoSupp.1993. He was sentenced in accord with the jury’s assessment to concurrent twenty year prison terms. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit. Movant has not addressed any points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion and that appeal is considered abandoned. An opinion would have no prec-edential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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 rape, § 566.030.3, RSMoSupp.1990, and sodomy, § 566.060.3, RSMoSupp.1993. He was sentenced in accord with the jury’s assessment to concurrent twenty year prison terms. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit. Movant has not addressed any points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion and that appeal is considered abandoned. An opinion would have no prec-edential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

State v. King, 891 S.W.2d 584, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 154, 1995 WL 34230 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

891 S.W.2d 584 (State v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.