State v. Mims

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mims

897 S.W.2d 670, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 936, 1995 WL 293841

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 16, 1995·No. Nos. 64637, 66485·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Rickey Mims appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, of trafficking drugs in the second degree in violation of § 195.223 (Cum.Supp.1992), tampering in the first degree in violation of § 569.080 RSMo 1986, and possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.202 RSMo (Cum.Supp. 1992), on which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from an order denying on the merits, after an eviden-tiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion. However, defendant has abandoned this appeal by failing to brief any errors with respect to the denial of post-conviction relief.

With respect to the direct appeal, no error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[671]*671The judgment is 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 Rickey Mims appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, of trafficking drugs in the second degree in violation of § 195.223 (Cum.Supp.1992), tampering in the first degree in violation of § 569.080 RSMo 1986, and possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.202 RSMo (Cum.Supp. 1992), on which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant also appeals from an order denying on the merits, after an eviden-tiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion. However, defendant has abandoned this appeal by failing to brief any errors with respect to the denial of post-conviction relief.

With respect to the direct appeal, no error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

[671]*671The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

State v. Mims, 897 S.W.2d 670, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 936, 1995 WL 293841 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

897 S.W.2d 670 (State v. Mims) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.