OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles Barnes, Appellant. Charles Barnes, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Charles Barnes·Charles Barnes, Appellant. Charles Barnes, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri
Respondent
State of Missouri

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"modified","scope":null}

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. Charles Barnes, Appellant. Charles Barnes, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 69626 and 72094 Handdown Date: 11/25/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. John F. Kintz Counsel for Appellant: Rosalynn Koch Counsel for Respondent: Breck Burgess Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Ahrens, P.J., Crandall and Karohl, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Opinion modified by Court's own motion on January 6, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. Defendant, Charles Barnes, appeals from his judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced as a prior offender to imprisonment for fifteen years. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion on defendant=s direct appeal. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b). The judgment of the trial court on defendant=s Rule 29.15 motion is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment 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.

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.