Hughes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hughes v. State

348 S.W.3d 146, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1216, 2011 WL 4356216

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 20, 2011·No. WD 72516·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Hughes appeals from the Circuit Court of Jackson County’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of *147 fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Hughes appeals from the Circuit Court of Jackson County’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of *147 fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Hughes v. State, 348 S.W.3d 146, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1216, 2011 WL 4356216 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

348 S.W.3d 146 (Hughes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related