Davis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Davis v. State

959 S.W.2d 933, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 77, 1998 WL 15193

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 20, 1998·No. No. 72046·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record provided on appeal and we conclude the motion court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record provided on appeal and we conclude the motion court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Davis v. State, 959 S.W.2d 933, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 77, 1998 WL 15193 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

959 S.W.2d 933 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.