Bailey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bailey v. State

381 S.W.3d 384, 2012 WL 4788421, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1272

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 9, 2012·No. No. ED 97884·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mareon L. Bailey (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, following an evidentia-ry hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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.

Mareon L. Bailey (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, following an evidentia-ry hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Bailey v. State, 381 S.W.3d 384, 2012 WL 4788421, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1272 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

381 S.W.3d 384 (Bailey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.