Gillespie v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gillespie v. State

504 S.W.3d 68, 2016 WL 2894781, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 494

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 17, 2016·No. No. ED 102999·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wayne E. Gillespie appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was 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) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wayne E. Gillespie appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was 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) (2015).

Gillespie v. State, 504 S.W.3d 68, 2016 WL 2894781, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

504 S.W.3d 68 (Gillespie v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related