Harris v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harris v. State

282 S.W.3d 387, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 358, 2009 WL 685320

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 17, 2009·No. ED 90313·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Fred L. Harris, Sr. appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion to vacate judgment and sentence 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 and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Matthews v. State, 175 S.W.3d 110, 113 (Mo.banc 2005). 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Fred L. Harris, Sr. appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion to vacate judgment and sentence 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 and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Matthews v. State, 175 S.W.3d 110, 113 (Mo.banc 2005). 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).

Harris v. State, 282 S.W.3d 387, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 358, 2009 WL 685320 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

282 S.W.3d 387 (Harris v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related