State v. Selvy

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Selvy

923 S.W.2d 349, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 1996 WL 81543

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 27, 1996

DocketNos. 66876, 68597

StatusPublished

This text of 923 S.W.2d 349 (State v. Selvy) 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. Selvy, 923 S.W.2d 349, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 1996 WL 81543 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury of involuntary manslaughter, § 565.024, RSMo Supp.1993. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to an eleven year prison term. Defendant also appealed from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are 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 his conviction by a jury of involuntary manslaughter, § 565.024, RSMo Supp.1993. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to an eleven year prison term. Defendant also appealed from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are 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)

923 S.W.2d 349, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 1996 WL 81543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-selvy-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack