State v. McKinney

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McKinney

937 S.W.2d 261, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1850, 1996 WL 653810

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 12, 1996·No. Nos. 67992, 69880·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1994. The court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to two consecutive twenty-five year prison terms. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Defendant does not address any points in his appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Therefore, that appeal is considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App. E.D.1991).

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 [262] 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 after he was convicted by a jury of two counts of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020, RSMo 1994. The court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to two consecutive twenty-five year prison terms. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Defendant does not address any points in his appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Therefore, that appeal is considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App. E.D.1991).

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 [262] 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).

State v. McKinney, 937 S.W.2d 261, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1850, 1996 WL 653810 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

937 S.W.2d 261 (State v. McKinney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related