Anderson v. State

324 S.W.3d 494, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1513, 2010 WL 4489996
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Anderson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 993
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 9, 2010·No. ED 93991·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Anderson appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a *495 memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties, for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2010, unless otherwise indicated.

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

Anderson v. State, 324 S.W.3d 494, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1513, 2010 WL 4489996 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

324 S.W.3d 494 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In the Interest of J.L.P.
324 S.W.3d 494 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)