Haywood v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haywood v. State

544 S.W.3d 249

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 14, 2017·No. No. ED 104883·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steven Haywood appeals from the motion court's judgment denying, following an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule *25029.15.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Steven Haywood appeals from the motion court's judgment denying, following an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule *25029.15.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Haywood v. State, 544 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

544 S.W.3d 249 (Haywood v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.