Coleman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Coleman v. State

364 S.W.3d 262, 2012 WL 1242956, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 462

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2012

DocketED 96640

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 S.W.3d 262 (Coleman 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

Coleman v. State, 364 S.W.3d 262, 2012 WL 1242956, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 462 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 262, 2012 WL 1242956, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack