State v. Montgomery

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Montgomery

832 S.W.2d 21, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1013

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 1992

DocketNo. 58885

StatusPublished

This text of 832 S.W.2d 21 (State v. Montgomery) 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. Montgomery, 832 S.W.2d 21, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1013 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Wayne Montgomery, appeals from his jury trial conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, RSMo § 571.070 (1986), for which he was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs, transcript and legal file and find no error on the part of the trial court. Nor do we find the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court to be clearly erroneous. As we further find no precedential value would be served by a full opinion, we affirm appellant’s conviction pursuant to Rule 30.25 and the denial of appellant’s post-conviction relief motion pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been [22]*22provided explaining the reasons for our holding.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Wayne Montgomery, appeals from his jury trial conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, RSMo § 571.070 (1986), for which he was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs, transcript and legal file and find no error on the part of the trial court. Nor do we find the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court to be clearly erroneous. As we further find no precedential value would be served by a full opinion, we affirm appellant’s conviction pursuant to Rule 30.25 and the denial of appellant’s post-conviction relief motion pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been [22]*22provided explaining the reasons for our holding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

832 S.W.2d 21, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-montgomery-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack