Hayes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hayes v. State

492 S.W.3d 627, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 2016 WL 3414819

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 21, 2016·No. No. ED 103551·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Arlee Hayes III (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s “Conclusions of Law and Order” on Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 claims for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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

Arlee Hayes III (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s “Conclusions of Law and Order” on Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 claims for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Hayes v. State, 492 S.W.3d 627, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 2016 WL 3414819 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

492 S.W.3d 627 (Hayes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.