Bates v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bates v. State

528 S.W.3d 40

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 2017

DocketED 104383

StatusPublished

This text of 528 S.W.3d 40 (Bates 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

Bates v. State, 528 S.W.3d 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rickey Bates (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An 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 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.

Rickey Bates (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An 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 pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

528 S.W.3d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-state-moctapp-2017.