State v. Walls

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Walls

900 S.W.2d 1, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 928, 1995 WL 293851

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1995

DocketNos. 65510, 67092

StatusPublished

This text of 900 S.W.2d 1 (State v. Walls) 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. Walls, 900 S.W.2d 1, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 928, 1995 WL 293851 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his convictions by a jury for second degree assault, § 565.060, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced defendant as a prior offender to five years imprisonment for assault and a consecutive three year term for armed criminal action. He also appeals from the denial, without 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 from his convictions by a jury for second degree assault, § 565.060, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced defendant as a prior offender to five years imprisonment for assault and a consecutive three year term for armed criminal action. He also appeals from the denial, without 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 S.W.2d 1, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 928, 1995 WL 293851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walls-moctapp-1995.