Jackson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jackson v. State

162 S.W.3d 33, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 110, 2005 WL 1320142

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 2005

DocketNo. WD 64212

StatusPublished

This text of 162 S.W.3d 33 (Jackson 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

Jackson v. State, 162 S.W.3d 33, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 110, 2005 WL 1320142 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Amron Jackson appeals from the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant claims that, as a result of fraudulent acts committed by the State, this judgment should be set aside pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(5) and Rule 74.05(d). After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Amron Jackson appeals from the denial of his motion to set aside the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant claims that, as a result of fraudulent acts committed by the State, this judgment should be set aside pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(5) and Rule 74.05(d). After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value but a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.W.3d 33, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 110, 2005 WL 1320142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-state-moctapp-2005.