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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles Barnes, Appellant.  Charles Barnes, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, 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/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-charles-barnes-appellant-charles-barnes-mo-12437
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12437
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=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Charles+Barnes%2C+Appellant.++Charles+Barnes%2C+Movant%2FAppellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=30&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: 30; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## 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.