Coomer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Coomer v. State

578 S.W.3d 840

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 11, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106918

StatusPublished

This text of 578 S.W.3d 840 (Coomer 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

Coomer v. State, 578 S.W.3d 840 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*841Dallis F. Coomer appeals from the "Judgment and Order" denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his "Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing" for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

*841Dallis F. Coomer appeals from the "Judgment and Order" denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his "Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing" for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the Judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 S.W.3d 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coomer-v-state-moctapp-2019.