Butler v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Butler v. State

356 S.W.3d 881, 2012 WL 123101, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 40

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 17, 2012·No. ED 96365·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Butler appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035 1 , following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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.2010, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Butler appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035 1 , following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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.2010, unless otherwise indicated.

Butler v. State, 356 S.W.3d 881, 2012 WL 123101, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 40 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

356 S.W.3d 881 (Butler v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related