Drake v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Drake v. State

443 S.W.3d 728, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2014 WL 4832296

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 30, 2014·No. No. ED 100376·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dajuan Drake appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dajuan Drake appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Drake v. State, 443 S.W.3d 728, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2014 WL 4832296 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

443 S.W.3d 728 (Drake v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.