Barmore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Barmore v. State

576 S.W.3d 336

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 11, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106571

StatusPublished

This text of 576 S.W.3d 336 (Barmore 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

Barmore v. State, 576 S.W.3d 336 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dwight Barmore appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum *337setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties, for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Dwight Barmore appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum *337setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties, for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 S.W.3d 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barmore-v-state-moctapp-2019.