Cardwell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cardwell v. State

200 S.W.3d 559, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1319, 2006 WL 2529498

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 5, 2006·No. ED 87086·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Angela Cardwell (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her Rule 29.15 1 motion to vacate judgment and sentence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. 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.

Angela Cardwell (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying her Rule 29.15 1 motion to vacate judgment and sentence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. 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.

Cardwell v. State, 200 S.W.3d 559, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1319, 2006 WL 2529498 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

200 S.W.3d 559 (Cardwell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related