Conner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Conner v. State

261 S.W.3d 718, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185, 2008 WL 4127287

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 2008

DocketWD 67727

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 261 S.W.3d 718 (Conner 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

Conner v. State, 261 S.W.3d 718, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185, 2008 WL 4127287 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*719 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Conner appeals the partial denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Conner asserts the motion court erred in failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to nineteen pro se claims alleged in the amended motion, thereby depriving him of the opportunity for meaningful appellate review of the denial of those claims. Because Conner failed to present any evidence at the hearing on the nineteen pro se claims alleged in the amended motion, the motion court’s failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law on those claims was not error. Smith v. State, 118 S.W.3d 691, 693-694 (Mo.App.2003).

As a published opinion in this case would be without precedential value, a memorandum explaining the court’s reasoning has been provided to the parties. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

*719 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Conner appeals the partial denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Conner asserts the motion court erred in failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to nineteen pro se claims alleged in the amended motion, thereby depriving him of the opportunity for meaningful appellate review of the denial of those claims. Because Conner failed to present any evidence at the hearing on the nineteen pro se claims alleged in the amended motion, the motion court’s failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law on those claims was not error. Smith v. State, 118 S.W.3d 691, 693-694 (Mo.App.2003).

As a published opinion in this case would be without precedential value, a memorandum explaining the court’s reasoning has been provided to the parties. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 S.W.3d 718, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1185, 2008 WL 4127287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conner-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack