State v. Pollock

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Pollock

903 S.W.2d 677, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1415, 1995 WL 464865

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 8, 1995

DocketNo. 64050

StatusPublished

This text of 903 S.W.2d 677 (State v. Pollock) 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. Pollock, 903 S.W.2d 677, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1415, 1995 WL 464865 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Keith Pollock, appeals from his jury-trial convictions for class A felony assault in the first degree, RSMo § 565.050 (1994), armed criminal action, RSMo § 571.015 (1994), and burglary in the first degree, RSMo § 569.160 (1994). Appellant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the convictions are supported by the evidence and not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. We further find the denial of appellant’s Rule 29.15 motion is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Keith Pollock, appeals from his jury-trial convictions for class A felony assault in the first degree, RSMo § 565.050 (1994), armed criminal action, RSMo § 571.015 (1994), and burglary in the first degree, RSMo § 569.160 (1994). Appellant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the convictions are supported by the evidence and not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. We further find the denial of appellant’s Rule 29.15 motion is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

903 S.W.2d 677, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1415, 1995 WL 464865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pollock-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack