Bailey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bailey v. State

201 S.W.3d 590, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1428, 2006 WL 2727976

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bailey v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1136 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 26, 2006·No. No. WD 65899·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Bailey appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Bailey appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

Bailey v. State, 201 S.W.3d 590, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1428, 2006 WL 2727976 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

201 S.W.3d 590 (Bailey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.