Summary
In State v. Nunnelly, 43 Ark. 68, it is said: "The established rule is that the former conviction is a bar to a subsequent indictment for any offense of which the defendant might have been convicted under the indictment and testimony in the first case."
Summary of this case from State v. PanchukOpinion
No. ED 80684
August 27, 2002
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Audrain County, Keith M. Sutherland, Judge.
Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andrea Mazza Follett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before Paul J. Simon, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Sr., J., and Kathianne Knaup Crane, J.
ORDER
Movant, Jacqueline Y. Nunnelly, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits without an evidentiary hearing her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's judgment is based on findings of facts and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, which sets forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).