Estep v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Estep v. State

317 S.W.3d 98, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 631, 2010 WL 1860078

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 11, 2010·No. ED 93608·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael E. Estep appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without 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. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael E. Estep appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without 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. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

Estep v. State, 317 S.W.3d 98, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 631, 2010 WL 1860078 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

317 S.W.3d 98 (Estep v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related