State v. Murphy

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Murphy

864 S.W.2d 391, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 1993 WL 439235

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Murphy. Read the opinion of the Court — 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 524 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 2, 1993·No. Nos. 60656, 63038·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent terms of thirteen years’ imprisonment on the assault charge and three years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction. After sentencing, defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion that the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing. These appeals have been consolidated for review pursuant to Rule 29.15(Z). We affirm both judgments. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. 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 his conviction by a jury of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent terms of thirteen years’ imprisonment on the assault charge and three years’ imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction. After sentencing, defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion that the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing. These appeals have been consolidated for review pursuant to Rule 29.15(Z). We affirm both judgments. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. 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).

State v. Murphy, 864 S.W.2d 391, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 1993 WL 439235 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

864 S.W.2d 391 (State v. Murphy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.