Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. State

514 S.W.3d 704, 2017 WL 1158127, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 216

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104084

StatusPublished

This text of 514 S.W.3d 704 (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, 514 S.W.3d 704, 2017 WL 1158127, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Taylor (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant claims the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because there was an insufficient factual basis to establish the element of first-degree assault of a law official that requires the assailant intended to cause serious physical injury. We find that Movant’s claims are refuted by the record and affirm the motion court’s ruling.

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 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.

Kenneth Taylor (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Mov-ant claims the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because there was an insufficient factual basis to establish the element of first-degree assault of a law official that requires the assailant intended to cause serious physical injury. We find that Movant’s claims are refuted by the record and affirm the motion court’s ruling.

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 pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 S.W.3d 704, 2017 WL 1158127, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-moctapp-2017.