French v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

French v. State

453 S.W.3d 863, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 95, 2015 WL 427976

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 3, 2015·No. ED 100850·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Adrian French appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evi-dentiary Hearing filed pursuant to Rule 24.085. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Adrian French appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evi-dentiary Hearing filed pursuant to Rule 24.085. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

French v. State, 453 S.W.3d 863, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 95, 2015 WL 427976 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

453 S.W.3d 863 (French v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.