Davis v. State

233 S.W.3d 765, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324, 2007 WL 2769434
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Davis v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 623
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 25, 2007·No. ED 88907·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian M. Davis (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 and Request for Evidentiary Hearing, filed pursuant to Rule 24.085.

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 that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 24.085(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

Davis v. State, 233 S.W.3d 765, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1324, 2007 WL 2769434 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

233 S.W.3d 765 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Howard
233 S.W.3d 765 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)