Adams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adams v. State

126 S.W.3d 768, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 95, 2004 WL 116530

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Adams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1719 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 27, 2004·No. No. ED 82781·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marlon Adams (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the findings of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marlon Adams (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the findings of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Adams v. State, 126 S.W.3d 768, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 95, 2004 WL 116530 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

126 S.W.3d 768 (Adams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.