State v. Spicer

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Spicer

896 S.W.2d 505, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 737

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 11, 1995·No. Nos. 62158, 65527·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury for first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced in accord with the jury’s assessment to a twelve year prison term. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury for first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced in accord with the jury’s assessment to a twelve year prison term. He also appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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. Spicer, 896 S.W.2d 505, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

896 S.W.2d 505 (State v. Spicer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.