Gardner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gardner v. State

983 S.W.2d 206, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2275

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 29, 1998

DocketNo. 74683

StatusPublished

This text of 983 S.W.2d 206 (Gardner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gardner v. State, 983 S.W.2d 206, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2275 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kyle D. Gardner (“movant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. In his prior appeal, State v. Gardner, 952 S.W.2d 384 (Mo.App.E.D. 1997), we remanded movant’s Rule 29.15 motion to the motion court for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Movant now asks us to review those specific findings and conclusions. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision is attached solely for the use of the parties involved.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kyle D. Gardner (“movant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. In his prior appeal, State v. Gardner, 952 S.W.2d 384 (Mo.App.E.D. 1997), we remanded movant’s Rule 29.15 motion to the motion court for entry of specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Movant now asks us to review those specific findings and conclusions. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision is attached solely for the use of the parties involved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

983 S.W.2d 206, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-state-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack