Johnson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. State

575 S.W.3d 506

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Johnson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 529 S.W.3d 36 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 21, 2019·No. No. ED 106664·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Danielle Johnson ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying the post-conviction relief claims asserted in his amended Rule 29.15 motion. Movant asserts two points on appeal. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Danielle Johnson ("Movant") appeals the motion court's judgment denying the post-conviction relief claims asserted in his amended Rule 29.15 motion. Movant asserts two points on appeal. Finding that Movant has failed to demonstrate that the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion, we affirm the judgment of the motion court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Johnson v. State, 575 S.W.3d 506 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

575 S.W.3d 506 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.