Drudge v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Drudge v. State

381 S.W.3d 396, 2012 WL 4883192, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1292

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 16, 2012·No. No. ED 96795·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lance Drudge appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 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.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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.

Lance Drudge appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 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.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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).

Drudge v. State, 381 S.W.3d 396, 2012 WL 4883192, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1292 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

381 S.W.3d 396 (Drudge v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.