Allen v. State
This text of 395 S.W.3d 42 (Allen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Craig Allen appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.151 without an eviden-tiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 348 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
395 S.W.3d 42, 2013 WL 704469, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-state-moctapp-2013.