Laura v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Laura v. State

179 S.W.3d 468, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1867, 2005 WL 3466103

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 20, 2005·No. ED 85719·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*469 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Laura (Appellant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment and sentence without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err. Jones v. State, 24 S.W.3d 701, 703 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.

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

*469 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Laura (Appellant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment and sentence without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not clearly err. Jones v. State, 24 S.W.3d 701, 703 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2004, unless otherwise indicated.

Laura v. State, 179 S.W.3d 468, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1867, 2005 WL 3466103 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

179 S.W.3d 468 (Laura v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related