State v. Miller

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Miller

959 S.W.2d 954, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 190, 1998 WL 37533

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 1998

DocketNos. 69602, 72234

StatusPublished

This text of 959 S.W.2d 954 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 959 S.W.2d 954, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 190, 1998 WL 37533 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Clarence Miller, appeals from the judgment entered upon the conviction by a jury of two counts of stealing, third offense, Sections 570.030 and 570.040, RSMo 1994. The court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Defendant also appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because of Defendant’s escape prior to sentencing. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error 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 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, Clarence Miller, appeals from the judgment entered upon the conviction by a jury of two counts of stealing, third offense, Sections 570.030 and 570.040, RSMo 1994. The court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Defendant also appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief because of Defendant’s escape prior to sentencing. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error 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 pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

959 S.W.2d 954, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 190, 1998 WL 37533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-moctapp-1998.