State v. McNeal

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McNeal

921 S.W.2d 139, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 741, 1996 WL 207707

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 1996

DocketNos. 66424, 68207

StatusPublished

This text of 921 S.W.2d 139 (State v. McNeal) 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. McNeal, 921 S.W.2d 139, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 741, 1996 WL 207707 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Lewis McNeal, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury of two counts of first degree assault and two counts of armed criminal action. §§ 565.050 and 571.015 RSMo 1986. Defen[140]*140dant was sentenced to consecutive terms of fifteen and seventeen years for the assault convictions and concurrent terms of ten and eleven years for the armed criminal action convictions. The sentences on the armed criminal action convictions were ordered to run concurrently with the sentences for assault.

Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing, but has failed to brief any points relating to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion on appeal. Where a defendant appeals the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion on appeal, but fails to raise any points relating to the denial of that motion in the brief on appeal, the point is considered abandoned. State v. Link, 916 S.W.2d 385, 386 n. 1 (Mo.App.E.D.1996); State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.E.D.1991).

The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

Judgment affirmed in accordance with 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, Lewis McNeal, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury of two counts of first degree assault and two counts of armed criminal action. §§ 565.050 and 571.015 RSMo 1986. Defen[140]*140dant was sentenced to consecutive terms of fifteen and seventeen years for the assault convictions and concurrent terms of ten and eleven years for the armed criminal action convictions. The sentences on the armed criminal action convictions were ordered to run concurrently with the sentences for assault.

Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing, but has failed to brief any points relating to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion on appeal. Where a defendant appeals the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion on appeal, but fails to raise any points relating to the denial of that motion in the brief on appeal, the point is considered abandoned. State v. Link, 916 S.W.2d 385, 386 n. 1 (Mo.App.E.D.1996); State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.E.D.1991).

The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 S.W.2d 139, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 741, 1996 WL 207707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcneal-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack