Church v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Church v. State

364 S.W.3d 269, 2012 WL 1338564, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 512

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 17, 2012·No. ED 97017·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Ray Church appeals from the motion court’s denial, following an eviden-tiary hearing, of his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2011, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Ray Church appeals from the motion court’s denial, following an eviden-tiary hearing, of his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2011, unless otherwise indicated.

Church v. State, 364 S.W.3d 269, 2012 WL 1338564, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 512 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

364 S.W.3d 269 (Church v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related