Hegwood v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hegwood v. State

510 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 676737

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103862

StatusPublished

This text of 510 S.W.3d 901 (Hegwood 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

Hegwood v. State, 510 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 676737 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Quitman Hegwood appeals from the judgment of the circuit court denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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

Quitman Hegwood appeals from the judgment of the circuit court denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 676737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hegwood-v-state-moctapp-2017.