Cordell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cordell v. State

463 S.W.3d 467, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 613, 2015 WL 3610537

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 9, 2015·No. No. ED 101886·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Cordell appeals from the motion court’s Judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use [468] only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Cordell appeals from the motion court’s Judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use [468] only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

Cordell v. State, 463 S.W.3d 467, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 613, 2015 WL 3610537 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

463 S.W.3d 467 (Cordell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.