State v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smith

937 S.W.2d 413, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 1997 WL 18995

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1997

DocketNos. 67968, 69809

StatusPublished

This text of 937 S.W.2d 413 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 937 S.W.2d 413, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 1997 WL 18995 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury of one count of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1986, one count of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, and two counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent prison terms of twenty-five years each for robbery and both counts of armed criminal action and fifteen years for assault. Defendant also appeals the partial denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. 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 [414]*414of 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 after his conviction by a jury of one count of first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1986, one count of first degree assault, § 565.050, RSMo 1986, and two counts of armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent prison terms of twenty-five years each for robbery and both counts of armed criminal action and fifteen years for assault. Defendant also appeals the partial denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. 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 [414]*414of 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

937 S.W.2d 413, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 1997 WL 18995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-moctapp-1997.