Broom v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Broom v. State

341 S.W.3d 749, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 682, 2011 WL 1900144

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 17, 2011·No. No. ED 94831·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Broom (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court that denied his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief.

[750] We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Broom (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court that denied his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 after an evidentiary hearing. Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief.

[750] We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Broom v. State, 341 S.W.3d 749, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 682, 2011 WL 1900144 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

341 S.W.3d 749 (Broom v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.