Coleman v. State
364 S.W.3d 262, 2012 WL 1242956, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 462
Opinion
ORDER
Christopher D. Coleman appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentia-ry hearing. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Coleman v. State, 364 S.W.3d 262, 2012 WL 1242956, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 462 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
364 S.W.3d 262 (Coleman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hicks v. State
364 S.W.3d 262 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)