OTT LAW

Carl Ward, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Carl Ward
Respondent
State of Missouri

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Carl Ward, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 73652 Handdown Date: 09/15/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Brendan Ryan Counsel for Appellant: Ellen H. Flottman Counsel for Respondent: Breck K. Burgess Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Pudlowski, P.J., Crandall, Jr., and Ahrens, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Movant, Carl A. Ward, appeals from the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post- conviction relief. Ward was charged by indictment with first degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 1994. A jury found Ward guilty of robbery and he was sentenced to a term of fifteen years. This court affirmed the conviction. State v. Ward, 943 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. App. 1997). Ward filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief that the motion court denied. He appeals from the denial of his 29.15 motion. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.