Jackson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jackson v. State

14 S.W.3d 228, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 218, 2000 WL 157179

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Jackson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1293 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 15, 2000·No. No. ED 76185·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jamie Jackson, movant, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. 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.

Jamie Jackson, movant, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Jackson v. State, 14 S.W.3d 228, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 218, 2000 WL 157179 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

14 S.W.3d 228 (Jackson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.