King v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

King v. State

126 S.W.3d 780, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 2004 WL 119334

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 27, 2004·No. No. ED 82026·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Brady King, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Brady King, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

King v. State, 126 S.W.3d 780, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 91, 2004 WL 119334 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

126 S.W.3d 780 (King v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.