Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. State

91 S.W.3d 152, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2316, 2002 WL 31655203

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 26, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80657

StatusPublished

This text of 91 S.W.3d 152 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 152, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2316, 2002 WL 31655203 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cornelius Taylor (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

This is the third time Movant’s case has come before this Court. Previously, we reversed and remanded an order granting Movant’s motion to suppress evidence in State v. Taylor, 965 S.W.2d 257 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). Following the jury trial on remand, Movant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Section 571.030.1(1) RSMo Supp.1995, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. We affirmed Movant’s conviction and sentence in State v. Taylor, 14 S.W.3d 660 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). After the direct appeal, Mov-[153]*153ant filed a motion for post-conviction relief. This appeal follows the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law denying Movant’s motion following an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming 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.

Cornelius Taylor (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

This is the third time Movant’s case has come before this Court. Previously, we reversed and remanded an order granting Movant’s motion to suppress evidence in State v. Taylor, 965 S.W.2d 257 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). Following the jury trial on remand, Movant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Section 571.030.1(1) RSMo Supp.1995, and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. We affirmed Movant’s conviction and sentence in State v. Taylor, 14 S.W.3d 660 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). After the direct appeal, Mov-[153]*153ant filed a motion for post-conviction relief. This appeal follows the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law denying Movant’s motion following an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W.3d 152, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2316, 2002 WL 31655203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack