Ford v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ford v. State

327 S.W.3d 628, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1730, 2010 WL 5174504

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 21, 2010

DocketED 94071

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 327 S.W.3d 628 (Ford v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ford v. State, 327 S.W.3d 628, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1730, 2010 WL 5174504 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Theon Ford appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief from the judgment convicting him of two counts of first-degree assault and two counts of armed criminal action, for which he was sentenced to a total of twenty years’ imprisonment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); O’Neal v. State, 236 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Theon Ford appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief from the judgment convicting him of two counts of first-degree assault and two counts of armed criminal action, for which he was sentenced to a total of twenty years’ imprisonment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); O’Neal v. State, 236 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 S.W.3d 628, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1730, 2010 WL 5174504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack