State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ervin Lampley, Appellant. Ervin Lampley, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Ervin Lampley·Ervin Lampley, Appellant. Ervin Lampley, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
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. Ervin Lampley, Appellant. Ervin Lampley, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 67987 & 71618 Handdown Date: 10/21/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Anna C. Forder Counsel for Appellant: Susan McGraugh Counsel for Respondent: Meghan Stephens Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Ahrens, P.J., Crandall, Jr., and Karohl, JJ., concur. Opinion: O R D E R Defendant, Ervin Lampley, appeals from judgments of conviction, after a jury trial, of two counts of sodomy of a child less than fourteen years old. The trial court sentenced defendant to two concurrent thirteen year terms of imprisonment. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments of conviction are affirmed. Rule 30.25. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, after an evidentiary hearing. The judgment of the motion court 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 of the motion court 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
- Rule 29.15cited
Rule 29.15
- Rule 30.25cited
Rule 30.25
- Rule 84.16cited
Rule 84.16
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Theodis Guyton, Defendant/Appellant. Theodis Guyton, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles Barnes, Appellant. Charles Barnes, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant. Keith Esters, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lacey Paige, Defendant. Lacey Paige, Movant/Defendant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie Portwood, Appellant. Willie Portwood, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael S. Roberts, Appellant.(1997)
Supreme Court of Missouri