Gardner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gardner v. State

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 2009

DocketED 92793

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 S.W.3d 645 (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, 297 S.W.3d 645, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1609, 2009 WL 3834094 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 S.W.3d 645, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1609, 2009 WL 3834094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack