State v. Nivens, 881 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Nivens, 881 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.▼
Quick Summary
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent
v.
Aaron NIVENS, Defendant/Appellant Aaron NIVENS, Movant/Appellant v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent
Nos. 62568, 64325.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jun 14, 1994.
Published opinion
881 S.W.2d 632
1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 940
1994 WL 256680
John A. Klosterman, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Crandall, Crist, Reinhard.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of forcible rape, § 566.030 RSMo Supp.1993, armed criminal action, § 571.015, RSMo 1986, and burglary in the first degree, § 569.160, RSMo 1986. He was sentenced by the court as a prior, persistent and class X offender to consecutive life sentences for the forcible rape and armed criminal action convictions, and thirty years’ imprisonment for the burglary conviction, to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed for the armed criminal action conviction. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).