Fox v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Fox v. State

313 S.W.3d 728, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 877, 2010 WL 2482892

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 22, 2010·No. WD 70416·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Shaun Fox appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reason for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Shaun Fox appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reason for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Fox v. State, 313 S.W.3d 728, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 877, 2010 WL 2482892 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

313 S.W.3d 728 (Fox v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.