Burle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burle v. State

510 S.W.3d 365, 2017 WL 491197, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 114

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 7, 2017·No. No. ED 104312·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Erik Burle, acting pro se, appeals the judgment denying his “Motion to Reopen Post-Conviction Proceedings and Request for Evidentiary Hearing.” We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Erik Burle, acting pro se, appeals the judgment denying his “Motion to Reopen Post-Conviction Proceedings and Request for Evidentiary Hearing.” We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, 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).

Burle v. State, 510 S.W.3d 365, 2017 WL 491197, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 114 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

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