Beck v. State
351 S.W.3d 250, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1427, 2011 WL 5064917
Opinion
ORDER
Kenneth Beck appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. And the motion court’s conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Beck v. State, 351 S.W.3d 250, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1427, 2011 WL 5064917 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
351 S.W.3d 250 (Beck v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lindenau v. ST. LOUIS ARC, INC.
351 S.W.3d 250 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)