Davis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Davis v. State

331 S.W.3d 723, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 226, 2011 WL 590364

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2011

DocketED 95298

StatusPublished

This text of 331 S.W.3d 723 (Davis 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

Davis v. State, 331 S.W.3d 723, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 226, 2011 WL 590364 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Norman Davis, Jr. (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value and we affirm by written order. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. 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

PER CURIAM.

Norman Davis, Jr. (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value and we affirm by written order. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 S.W.3d 723, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 226, 2011 WL 590364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack