Hughes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hughes v. State

537 S.W.3d 426

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 30, 2018·No. No. ED 105198·Published

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).

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

Pincite

537 S.W.3d 426 (Hughes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.