State v. Simms

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Simms

884 S.W.2d 431, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1549, 1994 WL 533783

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Simms. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1286 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 4, 1994·No. Nos. 62133, 64461·Published

Opinion

[432]*432 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his convictions by a jury of Count I, second degree drug trafficking, § 195.228.3(1), RSMo Supp.1993, and Count II, possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202.2, RSMo Supp.1993. He was sentenced as a class X offender, a prior and persistent offender, and a persistent drug offender to concurrent terms of eighteen years’ imprisonment. Defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court granted, in part, the relief defendant’s motion sought by deleting his class X offender status. The court denied the motion in all other respects, and defendant also appeals that denial. We affirm.

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

[432]*432 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his convictions by a jury of Count I, second degree drug trafficking, § 195.228.3(1), RSMo Supp.1993, and Count II, possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202.2, RSMo Supp.1993. He was sentenced as a class X offender, a prior and persistent offender, and a persistent drug offender to concurrent terms of eighteen years’ imprisonment. Defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court granted, in part, the relief defendant’s motion sought by deleting his class X offender status. The court denied the motion in all other respects, and defendant also appeals that denial. We affirm.

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. Simms, 884 S.W.2d 431, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1549, 1994 WL 533783 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

884 S.W.2d 431 (State v. Simms) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.