Hickey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hickey v. State

367 S.W.3d 648, 2012 WL 1994991, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 755

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 5, 2012·No. No. ED 96935·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Pietro Frank Hickey, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits [649] his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing on remand. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Pietro Frank Hickey, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits [649] his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing on remand. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Hickey v. State, 367 S.W.3d 648, 2012 WL 1994991, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 755 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

367 S.W.3d 648 (Hickey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.