Craig v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Craig v. State

202 S.W.3d 32, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1379, 2006 WL 2671003

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 19, 2006

DocketED 87229

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 S.W.3d 32 (Craig 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

Craig v. State, 202 S.W.3d 32, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1379, 2006 WL 2671003 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian E. Craig (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment (judgment) denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence pursuant to Rule 24.035. In summary, the motion court concluded there was a factual basis supporting Movant’s plea of guilty to one charge of child molestation in the first degree in violation of Section 566.067 RSMo 2000.

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. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 24.035(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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