Bailey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bailey v. State

64 S.W.3d 869, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 63, 2002 WL 46957

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 15, 2002·No. No. ED 79173·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, James Bailey, appeals the denial on the merits of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and 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 affirming the judgment 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.

Movant, James Bailey, appeals the denial on the merits of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and 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 affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Bailey v. State, 64 S.W.3d 869, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 63, 2002 WL 46957 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

64 S.W.3d 869 (Bailey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.