State v. Washington

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Washington

898 S.W.2d 159, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 947

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 23, 1995

DocketNos. 64863, 66655

StatusPublished

This text of 898 S.W.2d 159 (State v. Washington) 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. Washington, 898 S.W.2d 159, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 947 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of one count of burglary in the second degree and the court imposed sentence of twenty years imprisonment as a prior, persistent and class X offender. The issues raised on direct appeal are without merit and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel raised by Rule 29.15 motion is similarly without merit and discussion of it would have no jurisprudential purpose. The issue raised by Rule 29.15 motion concerning the absence of evidence to support the court’s finding that defendant is a class X offender is meritorious. State v. Wickizer, 641 S.W.2d 849 (Mo.App.1982). Defendant stipulated to the issue of defendant’s status as a prior and persistent offender but not to his status as a class X offender. The state is required to establish that status. Defendant is not, as he contends, entitled to reversal and discharge. State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533 (Mo. banc 1994)[3].

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Denial of motion for ineffective assistance of counsel affirmed. Cause remanded for further proceedings on defendant’s status as a class X offender and resentencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of one count of burglary in the second degree and the court imposed sentence of twenty years imprisonment as a prior, persistent and class X offender. The issues raised on direct appeal are without merit and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel raised by Rule 29.15 motion is similarly without merit and discussion of it would have no jurisprudential purpose. The issue raised by Rule 29.15 motion concerning the absence of evidence to support the court’s finding that defendant is a class X offender is meritorious. State v. Wickizer, 641 S.W.2d 849 (Mo.App.1982). Defendant stipulated to the issue of defendant’s status as a prior and persistent offender but not to his status as a class X offender. The state is required to establish that status. Defendant is not, as he contends, entitled to reversal and discharge. State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533 (Mo. banc 1994)[3].

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Denial of motion for ineffective assistance of counsel affirmed. Cause remanded for further proceedings on defendant’s status as a class X offender and resentencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

898 S.W.2d 159, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-washington-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack