Bowman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bowman v. State

341 S.W.3d 749, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 686, 2011 WL 1899756

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2011

DocketED 95118

StatusPublished

This text of 341 S.W.3d 749 (Bowman 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

Bowman v. State, 341 S.W.3d 749, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 686, 2011 WL 1899756 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Adrian Bowman (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion 1 for post-conviction relief from his conviction of and sentence for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103, 105-6 (Mo.banc 2008). 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).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2005, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Adrian Bowman (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion 1 for post-conviction relief from his conviction of and sentence for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103, 105-6 (Mo.banc 2008). 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).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2005, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 749, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 686, 2011 WL 1899756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack