Houston v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Houston v. State

469 S.W.3d 503, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 894, 2015 WL 5239746

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Houston v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 556 S.W.3d 124 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 8, 2015·No. ED 101793·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Damon Houston appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion. We have reviewed the briefs 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) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Damon Houston appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion. We have reviewed the briefs 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) (2015).

Houston v. State, 469 S.W.3d 503, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 894, 2015 WL 5239746 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

469 S.W.3d 503 (Houston v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.