Gray v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gray v. State

204 S.W.3d 328, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1573, 2006 WL 3007760

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gray v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1109 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 24, 2006·No. No. ED 86967·Published

Opinion

[329]*329 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry Gray (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035¹ postconvietion motion to vacate judgment and sentence after an evidentia-ry hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. Simmons v. State, 100 S.W.3d 143, 145 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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

[329]*329 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry Gray (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035¹ postconvietion motion to vacate judgment and sentence after an evidentia-ry hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. Simmons v. State, 100 S.W.3d 143, 145 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

Gray v. State, 204 S.W.3d 328, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1573, 2006 WL 3007760 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

204 S.W.3d 328 (Gray v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related