Bolden v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bolden v. State

571 S.W.3d 699

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106734

StatusPublished

This text of 571 S.W.3d 699 (Bolden 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

Bolden v. State, 571 S.W.3d 699 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Jasmine Bolden ("Movant") appeals the motion court's denial of her Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant offers one point on appeal. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying her Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

*700No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Jasmine Bolden ("Movant") appeals the motion court's denial of her Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant offers one point on appeal. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying her Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

*700No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 S.W.3d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bolden-v-state-moctapp-2019.