# State v. Brown

> Missouri Court of Appeals · February 29, 2000 · 16 S.W.3d 678

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5098549

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Missouri v. Kevin BROWN
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 29, 2000
- **Citations:** 16 S.W.3d 678; 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 296; 2000 WL 228352
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Ahrens, Mooney, Teitelman
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5098549

## Opinion text

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Brown, Defendant, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.081.1 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to life in prison; second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.082 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to life in prison; armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 30 years in prison; first-degree tampering in violation of Section 569.080 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 20 years in prison; and first-degree property damage in violation of Section 569.100 RSMo. (1994), as to which he was sentenced to 10 years in prison; all sentences are to run consecutively. Defendant also appeals from a judgment denying on the merits, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.
As to the direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
As to the post-conviction appeal, the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).
However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5098549. Public record. Not legal advice.