Anderson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Anderson v. State

554 S.W.3d 566

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 21, 2018·No. No. ED 105614·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cedric Anderson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

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

PER CURIAM.

Cedric Anderson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

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).

Anderson v. State, 554 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

554 S.W.3d 566 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.