Herrod v. State

350 S.W.3d 97, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1316, 2011 WL 4862952
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 11, 2011·No. ED 95686·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Vester Herrod appeals from the motion court’s denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15 1 (Rule 29.15 motion or post-conviction motion). 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).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2010, unless otherwise indicated.

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

Herrod v. State, 350 S.W.3d 97, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1316, 2011 WL 4862952 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

350 S.W.3d 97 (Herrod v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rothweiler v. Rothweiler
350 S.W.3d 97 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)