Cantrell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cantrell v. State

203 S.W.3d 768, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1537, 2006 WL 2947322

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 17, 2006·No. No. ED 86202·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Cantrell appeals from the motion court’s judgment and order denying his pro se Rule 29.12(b) Motion To Correct Sentence and Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Cantrell appeals from the motion court’s judgment and order denying his pro se Rule 29.12(b) Motion To Correct Sentence and Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cantrell v. State, 203 S.W.3d 768, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1537, 2006 WL 2947322 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

203 S.W.3d 768 (Cantrell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.