Hawkins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hawkins v. State

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 30, 2005·No. ED 85128·Published

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).

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

Pincite

178 S.W.3d 564 (Hawkins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.