Hale v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hale v. State

177 S.W.3d 844, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1500, 2005 WL 2649253

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hale v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 491 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 18, 2005·No. ED 85362·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Hale (Hale) appeals the trial court’s judgment, which denied Hale’s Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence and judgment and request for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court properly found that Hale was not entitled to relief under Rule 29.15. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the Record on Appeal, and we find no error of law in this case. Thus, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the *845 reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Hale (Hale) appeals the trial court’s judgment, which denied Hale’s Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence and judgment and request for an evidentiary hearing. The trial court properly found that Hale was not entitled to relief under Rule 29.15. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the Record on Appeal, and we find no error of law in this case. Thus, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the *845 reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Hale v. State, 177 S.W.3d 844, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1500, 2005 WL 2649253 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

177 S.W.3d 844 (Hale v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.