Haywood v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haywood v. State

447 S.W.3d 220, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1191, 2014 WL 5580949

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 28, 2014·No. No. ED 100666·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Michael Haywood (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his amended motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Michael Haywood (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his amended motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 without an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Haywood v. State, 447 S.W.3d 220, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1191, 2014 WL 5580949 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

447 S.W.3d 220 (Haywood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.