OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Anthony Cleveland, Appellant. Anthony Cleveland, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Anthony Cleveland·Anthony Cleveland, Appellant. Anthony Cleveland, Appellant, v. State of Missouri
Respondent
State of Missouri

Judges

Trial Court Judge
Daniel T

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, Respondent, v. Anthony Cleveland, Appellant. Anthony Cleveland, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 69653 and 72927 Handdown Date: 05/26/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Daniel T. Tillman Counsel for Appellant: John M. Schilmoeller Counsel for Respondent: Karen L. Kramer Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crahan, C. J., Teitelman, J., and Blackmar, Sr. J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Anthony Cleveland (Defendant) appeals from the judgment, following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, Missouri, convicting him of murder in the first degree, Section 565.020, RSMo 1994. The Honorable Daniel T. Tillman presided. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of probation or parole. Defendant also appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. The only three issues argued on appeal pertain to the direct appeal. The post conviction relief appeal has been abandoned and is denied. As to the direct appeal, 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 reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law.

The judgments are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and 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.