Bishop v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bishop v. State

345 S.W.3d 901, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1112, 2011 WL 3802177

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketWD 72898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 345 S.W.3d 901 (Bishop 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

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

Pincite

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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 S.W.3d 901, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1112, 2011 WL 3802177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack