Huntley v. State

267 S.W.3d 811, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1587, 2008 WL 4709741
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 28, 2008·No. ED 90663·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Huntley (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of her Rule 24.035 1 amended motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b)(2).

1

. Unless otherwise stated, all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2008).

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

Huntley v. State, 267 S.W.3d 811, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1587, 2008 WL 4709741 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

267 S.W.3d 811 (Huntley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Deal v. Deal
267 S.W.3d 811 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)