Gillispie v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gillispie v. State

414 S.W.3d 52, 2013 WL 6095550, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1377

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 19, 2013·No. No. ED 99882·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Artoska Gillispie appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2) & (5).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Artoska Gillispie appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2) & (5).

Gillispie v. State, 414 S.W.3d 52, 2013 WL 6095550, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1377 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

414 S.W.3d 52 (Gillispie v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.