Anderson v. State
31 S.W.3d 64, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1220, 2000 WL 1145347
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Anderson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 256 →
Opinion
ORDER
Carl Anderson, defendant, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-eonviction relief after a hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only 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
Anderson v. State, 31 S.W.3d 64, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1220, 2000 WL 1145347 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
31 S.W.3d 64 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.