Hopfer v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hopfer v. State

383 S.W.3d 494, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1419, 2012 WL 5493358

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 13, 2012·No. No. ED 97880·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Todd Hopfer appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying his request for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Todd Hopfer appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying his request for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Hopfer v. State, 383 S.W.3d 494, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1419, 2012 WL 5493358 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

383 S.W.3d 494 (Hopfer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.