Holt v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Holt v. State

374 S.W.3d 399, 2012 WL 3662197, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1019

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 28, 2012·No. No. ED 96366·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Glenn Holt, (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.¹ Movant contends the motion court erred in finding the State met its burden to prove Movant was a prior and persistent offender.

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 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no presidential 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 Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Glenn Holt, (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.¹ Movant contends the motion court erred in finding the State met its burden to prove Movant was a prior and persistent offender.

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 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no presidential 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 Rule 84.16(b) Mo.R.Civ.P.(2012).

Footnotes

Holt v. State, 374 S.W.3d 399, 2012 WL 3662197, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1019 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

374 S.W.3d 399 (Holt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.