Favell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Favell v. State

369 S.W.3d 764, 2012 WL 1926445, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 727

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 29, 2012·No. No. ED 97677·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerome Favell (Movant), acting pro se, claims the Circuit Court of Marion County erred in denying his motion requesting reduction of sentence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerome Favell (Movant), acting pro se, claims the Circuit Court of Marion County erred in denying his motion requesting reduction of sentence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Favell v. State, 369 S.W.3d 764, 2012 WL 1926445, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 727 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

369 S.W.3d 764 (Favell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.