Flanigan v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Flanigan v. State

381 S.W.3d 396, 2012 WL 4883193, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 16, 2012·No. No. ED 96902·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Flanigan appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2)&(5).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen Flanigan appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2)&(5).

Flanigan v. State, 381 S.W.3d 396, 2012 WL 4883193, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

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