Booth v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Booth v. State

249 S.W.3d 275, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2008 WL 926604

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 2008

DocketED 89618

StatusPublished

This text of 249 S.W.3d 275 (Booth 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

Booth v. State, 249 S.W.3d 275, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2008 WL 926604 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*276 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Tyler Booth, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

*276 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Tyler Booth, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.W.3d 275, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 481, 2008 WL 926604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booth-v-state-moctapp-2008.