OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Ralph Harper, Defendant/Appellant and Ralph Harper, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Ralph Harper, Defendant/·Ralph Harper, Defendant/Appellant and Ralph Harper, Movant, v. State of Missouri
Respondent
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/

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: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Ralph Harper, Defendant/Appellant and Ralph Harper, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 69743 and 72144 Handdown Date: 04/07/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Edward M. Peek Counsel for Appellant: Douglas R. Hoff Counsel for Respondent: Ann R. Littell Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J. Opinion: O R D E R Ralph Harper appeals from his conviction of attempted robbery, Section 564.011 RSMo 1994, first degree assault, Section 565.050 RSMo 994, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo 1994. Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment for Count I, a concurrent term of twenty years imprisonment for Count II and a consecutive term of three years imprisonment for Count III. This appeal is consolidated with an appeal from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have read the briefs, reviewed the legal file and transcript. We find no error of law and no jurisprudential purpose will be served by an extended written opinion. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b). The

denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. 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

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.