Wade v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wade v. State

351 S.W.3d 228, 2010 WL 7798846

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2010

DocketED 95547

StatusPublished

This text of 351 S.W.3d 228 (Wade 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

Wade v. State, 351 S.W.3d 228, 2010 WL 7798846 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Wade appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable David C. Mason presiding. A jury convicted David Wade of burglary in the first degree and assault in the third degree. The trial court sentenced Wade to fifteen years on the burglary conviction, and one year on the assault conviction.

On appeal, Wade argued that the circuit court erred in denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Wade appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the Honorable David C. Mason presiding. A jury convicted David Wade of burglary in the first degree and assault in the third degree. The trial court sentenced Wade to fifteen years on the burglary conviction, and one year on the assault conviction.

On appeal, Wade argued that the circuit court erred in denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 S.W.3d 228, 2010 WL 7798846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-state-moctapp-2010.