Grady v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Grady v. State

330 S.W.3d 500, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 267, 2010 WL 785329

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 9, 2010·No. ED 92748·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gus Grady appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.15 post-conviction relief claim after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566, 572 (Mo.banc 2005). 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gus Grady appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.15 post-conviction relief claim after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566, 572 (Mo.banc 2005). 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).

Grady v. State, 330 S.W.3d 500, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 267, 2010 WL 785329 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

330 S.W.3d 500 (Grady v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related