Birdno v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Birdno v. State

517 S.W.3d 677, 2017 WL 1881132, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 399

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 9, 2017·No. No. ED 103610·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason Birdno appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We find no clear error in the motion court’s findings and conclusions. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor 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.

Jason Birdno appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We find no clear error in the motion court’s findings and conclusions. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor 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).

Birdno v. State, 517 S.W.3d 677, 2017 WL 1881132, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 399 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

517 S.W.3d 677 (Birdno v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.