State v. Merritt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Merritt

891 S.W.2d 584, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 157, 1995 WL 34235

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Merritt. Read the opinion of the Court — 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 989 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 31, 1995·No. Nos. 63921, 65701·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals his conviction by a jury for first degree burglary, § 569.160, RSMol986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to a twenty-five year prison term. He also appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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 precedential 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.

Movant appeals his conviction by a jury for first degree burglary, § 569.160, RSMol986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender to a twenty-five year prison term. He also appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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 precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

State v. Merritt, 891 S.W.2d 584, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 157, 1995 WL 34235 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

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