Davis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Davis v. State

101 S.W.3d 323, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 432, 2003 WL 1494974

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 25, 2003·No. No. ED 81193·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Elisha J. Davis, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Elisha J. Davis, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Davis v. State, 101 S.W.3d 323, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 432, 2003 WL 1494974 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

101 S.W.3d 323 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.