Forest v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Forest v. State

369 S.W.3d 51, 2012 WL 1699327, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 621

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 9, 2012·No. No. ED 97343·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Keith Forest (“Forest”) appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings pursuant to Rule 75.01 on grounds of abandonment of post-conviction counsel. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Keith Forest (“Forest”) appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings pursuant to Rule 75.01 on grounds of abandonment of post-conviction counsel. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

AFFIRMED.

Forest v. State, 369 S.W.3d 51, 2012 WL 1699327, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

369 S.W.3d 51 (Forest v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.