Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Sam Gene Robbins, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sam-gene-robbins-plaintiffappellant-v-state-of-missouri-defendantresponde-12723
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12723
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Sam+Gene+Robbins%2C+Plaintiff%2FAppellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Defendant%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## 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:  Sam Gene Robbins, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.
Case Number:  71730
Handdown Date:  04/21/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Gary P. Kramer
Counsel for Appellant:  John M. Schilmoeller
Counsel for Respondent:  Gregory L. Barnes
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Movant pled guilty to first degree tampering and stealing, in violation of sections 569.080.1(2) and 570.030, RSMo 
1994.  The trial court sentenced him to two concurrent five year terms of imprisonment.  
Thereafter, movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion. The motion court conducted a hearing and issued findings of facts 
and conclusions of law, and denied the motion.  Movant appeals.
We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties.  The motion court's determination is not 
clearly erroneous.  Rule 24.035(k).  No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written 
opinion.  The motion court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to 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.