Bishop v. State

345 S.W.3d 901, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1112, 2011 WL 3802177
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 30, 2011·No. WD 72898·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

James Bishop appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-eon-viction relief. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bishop v. State, 345 S.W.3d 901, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1112, 2011 WL 3802177 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

345 S.W.3d 901 (Bishop v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Solomon v. Division of Employment Security
345 S.W.3d 901 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)