State v. Walton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Walton

916 S.W.2d 418, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 264, 1996 WL 70212

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

DocketNos. 65190, 67425

StatusPublished

This text of 916 S.W.2d 418 (State v. Walton) 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. Walton, 916 S.W.2d 418, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 264, 1996 WL 70212 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery, § 569.030, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a class X offender to a prison term of twenty-five years. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-[419]*419conviction 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 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 after he was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery, § 569.030, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced him as a class X offender to a prison term of twenty-five years. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-[419]*419conviction 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 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)

916 S.W.2d 418, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 264, 1996 WL 70212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walton-moctapp-1996.