Hood v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hood v. State

548 S.W.3d 929

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 2018

DocketED 105578

StatusPublished

This text of 548 S.W.3d 929 (Hood 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

Hood v. State, 548 S.W.3d 929 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Hood appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion filed pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.15 (2015). We have reviewed the *930briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief 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) (2017).

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

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Hood appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his motion filed pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.15 (2015). We have reviewed the *930briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court's denial of post-conviction relief 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) (2017).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 S.W.3d 929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-state-moctapp-2018.