Holland v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Holland v. State

982 S.W.2d 789, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2238, 1998 WL 888534

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 22, 1998·No. No. ED 73809·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Earl Holland (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. On a previous appeal in this case, this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Holland v. State, 954 S.W.2d 660 (Mo.App.1997). Following the hearing, the court issued a judgment denying Movant’s motion, specifically finding Mov-ant’s testimony to not be credible.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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.

Earl Holland (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. On a previous appeal in this case, this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Holland v. State, 954 S.W.2d 660 (Mo.App.1997). Following the hearing, the court issued a judgment denying Movant’s motion, specifically finding Mov-ant’s testimony to not be credible.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Holland v. State, 982 S.W.2d 789, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2238, 1998 WL 888534 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

982 S.W.2d 789 (Holland v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related