Anderson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Anderson v. State

485 S.W.3d 826, 2016 WL 1469978, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 338

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 12, 2016·No. No. ED 102777·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alfred T. Anderson appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and, conclude the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k), Hymes v. State, 466 S.W.3d 677, 679 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). 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).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alfred T. Anderson appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and, conclude the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k), Hymes v. State, 466 S.W.3d 677, 679 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). 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).

Footnotes

Anderson v. State, 485 S.W.3d 826, 2016 WL 1469978, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 338 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

485 S.W.3d 826 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related