Ford v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ford v. State

534 S.W.3d 922

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 12, 2017·No. No. ED 105207·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Billy Joe Ford appeals the judgment, entered after an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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.

Billy Joe Ford appeals the judgment, entered after an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence for first-degree murder. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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).

Ford v. State, 534 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

534 S.W.3d 922 (Ford v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.