Chandler v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Chandler v. State

576 S.W.3d 336

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 11, 2019

DocketNos. ED 106572/ED 106573

StatusPublished

This text of 576 S.W.3d 336 (Chandler v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chandler v. State, 576 S.W.3d 336 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Kevin Chandler appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his two Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motions after an evidentiary hearing on both motions. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Kevin Chandler appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his two Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motions after an evidentiary hearing on both motions. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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 Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 S.W.3d 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-state-moctapp-2019.