Cooley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cooley v. State

369 S.W.3d 804, 2012 WL 3025959, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 958

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 26, 2012·No. No. WD 73721·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Michael D. Cooley appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Michael D. Cooley appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cooley v. State, 369 S.W.3d 804, 2012 WL 3025959, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 958 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

369 S.W.3d 804 (Cooley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.