Andrews v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Andrews v. State

561 S.W.3d 901

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 27, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105822

StatusPublished

This text of 561 S.W.3d 901 (Andrews v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. State, 561 S.W.3d 901 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Andrews appeals from the motion court's order denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035¹ after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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).

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

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Andrews appeals from the motion court's order denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035¹ after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

561 S.W.3d 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-state-moctapp-2018.