Allen v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Allen v. State

482 S.W.3d 824, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 184, 2016 WL 796704

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 1, 2016·No. No. ED 102603·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathan Allen appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

[825] No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathan Allen appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

[825] No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Allen v. State, 482 S.W.3d 824, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 184, 2016 WL 796704 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

482 S.W.3d 824 (Allen v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.