Hughes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hughes v. State

537 S.W.3d 426

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 30, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105198

StatusPublished

This text of 537 S.W.3d 426 (Hughes 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

Hughes v. State, 537 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The movant, Martine. Hughes, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing.

. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We.affirm the motion court’s judgment denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rute 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

The movant, Martine. Hughes, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an eviden-tiary hearing.

. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We.affirm the motion court’s judgment denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rute 84.16(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 S.W.3d 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-state-moctapp-2018.