Boehm v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Boehm v. State

365 S.W.3d 616, 2012 WL 1416624, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 540

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 24, 2012·No. ED 96433·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Boehm appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties, for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2011).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2011, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Boehm appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties, for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b) (2011).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2011, unless otherwise indicated.

Boehm v. State, 365 S.W.3d 616, 2012 WL 1416624, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 540 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

365 S.W.3d 616 (Boehm v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.