Hawkins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hawkins v. State

178 S.W.3d 564, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1266, 2005 WL 2076731

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2005

DocketED 85128

StatusPublished

This text of 178 S.W.3d 564 (Hawkins 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

Hawkins v. State, 178 S.W.3d 564, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1266, 2005 WL 2076731 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Nathan Hawkins, appeals pro se from a judgment denying his motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Nathan Hawkins, appeals pro se from a judgment denying his motion to reopen his post-conviction proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 S.W.3d 564, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1266, 2005 WL 2076731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-state-moctapp-2005.