Johnson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. State

358 S.W.3d 584, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 164, 2012 WL 453732

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

DocketED 95899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 S.W.3d 584 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 358 S.W.3d 584, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 164, 2012 WL 453732 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Don Johnson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying his request for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment .of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Don Johnson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying his request for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment .of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 584, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 164, 2012 WL 453732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack