Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

925 S.W.2d 220

State v. Armstrong

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided July 9, 1996

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1996-07-09

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1999

3 state decisions

Relies on State v. Nelson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-07-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Defendant appeals after, he was convicted following a bench trial of one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo Supp.1993. Defendant also appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

¶3Defendant addresses no points on appeal to the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief; that appeal is considered abandoned. See State v. Nelson, 818 S.W.2d 285, 287 (Mo.App.1991). We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error on direct appeal are without merit. 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 affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

/925/sw2d/220 · .json · Public domain