Allen v. State

395 S.W.3d 42, 2013 WL 704469, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 259
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Allen v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 821
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2013·No. No. ED 98262·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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

Allen v. State, 395 S.W.3d 42, 2013 WL 704469, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 259 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

395 S.W.3d 42 (Allen v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meece v. Commonwealth
348 S.W.3d 627 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2011)