Johnson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. State

575 S.W.3d 506

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 21, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106664

StatusPublished

This text of 575 S.W.3d 506 (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, 575 S.W.3d 506 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 S.W.3d 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-moctapp-2019.