Arnall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arnall v. State

518 S.W.3d 285, 2017 WL 2118549, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 423

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 16, 2017·No. ED 104423·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mitchell Amall (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mitchell Amall (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Arnall v. State, 518 S.W.3d 285, 2017 WL 2118549, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 423 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

518 S.W.3d 285 (Arnall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.