Howard v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Howard v. State

214 S.W.3d 350, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 225, 2007 WL 446984

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Howard v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 545 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 13, 2007·No. No. ED 87956·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Ivory Lee Howard, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

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.

Movant, Ivory Lee Howard, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Howard v. State, 214 S.W.3d 350, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 225, 2007 WL 446984 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

214 S.W.3d 350 (Howard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.