Frisella v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Frisella v. State

423 S.W.3d 800, 2013 WL 5634934, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1190

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 15, 2013·No. No. ED 99041·Published

Opinion

[801] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Mark Frisella, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

[801] ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Mark Frisella, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Frisella v. State, 423 S.W.3d 800, 2013 WL 5634934, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1190 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

423 S.W.3d 800 (Frisella v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.