Haughton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haughton v. State

175 S.W.3d 691, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1649, 2005 WL 2979248

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 2005

DocketNo. ED 85934

StatusPublished

This text of 175 S.W.3d 691 (Haughton 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

Haughton v. State, 175 S.W.3d 691, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1649, 2005 WL 2979248 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Travis Haughton, appeals the motion court’s order denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Travis Haughton, appeals the motion court’s order denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.W.3d 691, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1649, 2005 WL 2979248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haughton-v-state-moctapp-2005.