OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald Lawrence, Appellant. Ronald Lawrence, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Ronald Lawrence·Ronald Lawrence, Appellant. Ronald Lawrence, 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. Ronald Lawrence, Appellant. Ronald Lawrence, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 67072 and 71310 Handdown Date: 11/11/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Michael Hart Counsel for Appellant: Susan McGraugh and John M. Schilmoeller Counsel for Respondent: John Munson Morris, III Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crahan, C.J., Knaup Crane, J. and Blackmar, Sr.J., concur. Opinion: Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction by a jury of tampering in the first degree in violation of Section 569.080.1 RSMo 1994, burglary in the first degree in violation of Section 569.160 RSMo 1994, two counts of assault in the third degree in violation of Section 565.070 RSMo 1994, three counts of burglary in the second degree in violation of Section 569.170 RSMo 1994, stealing in violation of Section 570.030 RSMo 1994, and tampering in the second degree in violation of Section 563.090 RSMo 1994. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A detailed opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 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.