Stevenson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stevenson v. State

46 S.W.3d 680, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 976, 2001 WL 650693

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 2001

DocketNo. ED 78406

StatusPublished

This text of 46 S.W.3d 680 (Stevenson v. State) 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

Stevenson v. State, 46 S.W.3d 680, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 976, 2001 WL 650693 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury found appellant Anthony Stevenson (Movant) guilty of three counts of second degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of section 565.082.1, RSMo 2000 and three counts of armed criminal action in violation of section 571.015, RSMo 2000. This court affirmed Movant’s direct appeal of the judgment. State v. Stevenson, 998 S.W.2d 120 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). He now appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury found appellant Anthony Stevenson (Movant) guilty of three counts of second degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of section 565.082.1, RSMo 2000 and three counts of armed criminal action in violation of section 571.015, RSMo 2000. This court affirmed Movant’s direct appeal of the judgment. State v. Stevenson, 998 S.W.2d 120 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). He now appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.W.3d 680, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 976, 2001 WL 650693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevenson-v-state-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack