Hendrickson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hendrickson v. State

348 S.W.3d 185, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2011 WL 4369447

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 20, 2011·No. ED 96078·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jason Hendrickson (Movant) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

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.

Jason Hendrickson (Movant) appeals from the circuit court’s judgment denying, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

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).

Hendrickson v. State, 348 S.W.3d 185, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2011 WL 4369447 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

348 S.W.3d 185 (Hendrickson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.