Herrod v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Herrod v. State

350 S.W.3d 97, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1316, 2011 WL 4862952

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 2011

DocketED 95686

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 350 S.W.3d 97 (Herrod 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 S.W.3d 97, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1316, 2011 WL 4862952, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrod-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack