Jaggers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Jaggers v. State

399 S.W.3d 926, 2013 WL 2395975, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 687

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 4, 2013·No. No. WD 74962·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Clarence Jaggers appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. 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; however, a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Clarence Jaggers appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. 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; however, a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16.

Jaggers v. State, 399 S.W.3d 926, 2013 WL 2395975, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 687 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

399 S.W.3d 926 (Jaggers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.