Blakemore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Blakemore v. State

367 S.W.3d 160, 2012 WL 1881741, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 702

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 22, 2012·No. No. ED 97055·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Blakemore appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Blakemore’s request [161]*161for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Blakemore appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Blakemore’s request [161]*161for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Blakemore v. State, 367 S.W.3d 160, 2012 WL 1881741, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

367 S.W.3d 160 (Blakemore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.