Baron v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Baron v. State

483 S.W.3d 468, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 226, 2016 WL 1085704

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2016

DocketED 102815

StatusPublished

This text of 483 S.W.3d 468 (Baron 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

Baron v. State, 483 S.W.3d 468, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 226, 2016 WL 1085704 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jacqueline Baron appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying her 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 setting 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jacqueline Baron appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying her 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 setting 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)

483 S.W.3d 468, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 226, 2016 WL 1085704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baron-v-state-moctapp-2016.