Beard v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Beard v. State

318 S.W.3d 322, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1077, 2010 WL 3314783

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 24, 2010·No. ED 93751·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Don Beard (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order (judgment) denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing (PCR Motion), filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, on his convictions for attempted child molestation and attempted victim tampering. 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. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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.

Don Beard (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order (judgment) denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing (PCR Motion), filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, on his convictions for attempted child molestation and attempted victim tampering. 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. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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).

Beard v. State, 318 S.W.3d 322, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1077, 2010 WL 3314783 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

318 S.W.3d 322 (Beard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.