DEHART v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

DEHART v. State

363 S.W.3d 133, 2012 WL 123109, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 44

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 17, 2012·No. ED 96682·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Dehart (Appellant) appeals from the motion court’s order and judgment denying his Motion to Reopen his post- *134 conviction proceedings. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion to Reopen was not clearly erroneous. Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Mo. banc 2009). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Dehart (Appellant) appeals from the motion court’s order and judgment denying his Motion to Reopen his post- *134 conviction proceedings. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion to Reopen was not clearly erroneous. Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Mo. banc 2009). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

DEHART v. State, 363 S.W.3d 133, 2012 WL 123109, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 44 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

363 S.W.3d 133 (DEHART v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related