OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. John-John Murphy, Defendant/Appellant. John-John Murphy, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
John-John Murphy, Defendant/·John-John Murphy, Defendant/Appellant. John-John Murphy, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/
Respondent
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/

Disposition

Undetermined

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: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. John-John Murphy, Defendant/Appellant. John-John Murphy, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent. Case Number: Nos. 67301 & 70761 Handdown Date: 07/08/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Donald E. Dalton Counsel for Appellant: John J. Schilmoeller Counsel for Respondent: Sara L. Trower, Assistant Attorney General Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: Before: Reinhard, P.J., Karohl, J., and Dowd, Jr., JJ. Opinion: DIVISION SIX O R D E R Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury for robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1986. The court found defendant to be a prior offender and sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of life imprisonment for robbery and twenty years for armed criminal action. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. 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). 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

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.