Glass v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Glass v. State

21 S.W.3d 852, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 34, 2000 WL 14669

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 11, 2000

DocketNo. ED 75740

StatusPublished

This text of 21 S.W.3d 852 (Glass 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

Glass v. State, 21 S.W.3d 852, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 34, 2000 WL 14669 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Glass, Movant, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Glass, Movant, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 S.W.3d 852, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 34, 2000 WL 14669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-state-moctapp-2000.