State v. Moore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Moore

914 S.W.2d 867, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 221

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

DocketNos. 65182, 67449

StatusPublished

This text of 914 S.W.2d 867 (State v. Moore) 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. Moore, 914 S.W.2d 867, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury for second degree robbery, § 569.030, RSMol986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to a thirty year prison term. He also appeals the motion court’s judgment denying Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Defendant has failed to address any points in this appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. That appeal is therefore considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d [868]*868285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the defendant’s claim of error on direct appeal and find it to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential 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 affirming the judgment 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 appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury for second degree robbery, § 569.030, RSMol986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to a thirty year prison term. He also appeals the motion court’s judgment denying Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Defendant has failed to address any points in this appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. That appeal is therefore considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d [868]*868285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the defendant’s claim of error on direct appeal and find it to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential 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 affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

914 S.W.2d 867, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack