Beck v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Beck v. State

351 S.W.3d 250, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1427, 2011 WL 5064917

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

DocketED 96092

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 351 S.W.3d 250 (Beck 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

Beck v. State, 351 S.W.3d 250, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1427, 2011 WL 5064917 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 S.W.3d 250, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1427, 2011 WL 5064917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack