Hellems v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hellems v. State

371 S.W.3d 23, 2012 WL 1114723, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 447

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 3, 2012·No. No. ED 95727·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Oney Hellems (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035¹, following an eviden-tiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(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).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Oney Hellems (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035¹, following an eviden-tiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(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).

Footnotes

Hellems v. State, 371 S.W.3d 23, 2012 WL 1114723, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 447 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

371 S.W.3d 23 (Hellems v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.