State v. Mack

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mack

900 S.W.2d 9, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1101, 1995 WL 351651

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 1995

DocketNos. 64702, 66677

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 900 S.W.2d 9 (State v. Mack) 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. Mack, 900 S.W.2d 9, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1101, 1995 WL 351651 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury of first degree murder, § 565.020.1, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to life imprisonment without possibility of probation or parole for the murder and a consecutive life term for the armed criminal action. He also appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Defendant addresses no points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion; that appeal is considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claim of error on direct appeal to be without merit. An opinion would have no prece-dential 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. 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 of first degree murder, § 565.020.1, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to life imprisonment without possibility of probation or parole for the murder and a consecutive life term for the armed criminal action. He also appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Defendant addresses no points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion; that appeal is considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claim of error on direct appeal to be without merit. An opinion would have no prece-dential 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. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 S.W.2d 9, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1101, 1995 WL 351651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mack-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack