Rogers v. State, 17194
| Decision Date | 05 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 17194,17194 |
| Citation | 810 S.W.2d 125 |
| Parties | Ronnie L. ROGERS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Judith C. LaRose, Columbia, for movant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Geoffrey W. Preckshot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.
Movant pled guilty to both counts of an information charging him with possession of controlled substances.He was sentenced to four years on Count I and three years on Count II, with the terms to run consecutively.
Movant filed a pro se motion under Rule 24.035 seeking to have the conviction and sentence vacated.Following appointment of counsel an amended motion was filed.Movant's counsel also requested a hearing on the motion.
Dated August 31, 1990, the docket sheet reflects No other findings and conclusions were made.
Rule 24.035(i) provides in part that the trial court"shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held."The requirements under this rule and Rule 29.15(i) have not been literally applied on appeal if the findings were sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review.Tettamble v. State, 798 S.W.2d 489, 491(Mo.App.1990).
Here, as in Tettamble, there was more than one...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Barry v. State
...direct conflict with at least two recent court of appeals cases, Brown v. State, 810 S.W.2d 716, 718 (Mo.App.1991), and Rogers v. State, 810 S.W.2d 125 (Mo.App.1991). While Balow is similar to the case here, it relied on Townsend v. State, 740 S.W.2d 328 (Mo.App.1987), as controlling author......
-
Green v. State, 19577
...findings of facts and conclusions of law as required by Rule 24.035(i). Brown v. State, 810 S.W.2d 716 (Mo.App.1991), and Rogers v. State, 810 S.W.2d 125 (Mo.App.1991), are similar to Holloway. Both cases were dismissed by docket entries. In Brown, the motion court's docket entry denying th......
-
State v. Cook, s. 18457
...State v. Rouse, 866 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Mo.App.1993). See also State v. Sappington, 873 S.W.2d 618, 626-27 (Mo.App.1994); Rogers v. State, 810 S.W.2d 125 (Mo.App.1991). No. 18457 is dismissed. No. 21220 is reversed and remanded for the motion court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of ......