Gardner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gardner v. State

297 S.W.3d 645, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1609, 2009 WL 3834094

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 17, 2009·No. ED 92793·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Gardner appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion under Rule 29.15 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Gardner appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion under Rule 29.15 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

Gardner v. State, 297 S.W.3d 645, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1609, 2009 WL 3834094 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

297 S.W.3d 645 (Gardner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related