Lee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lee v. State

567 S.W.3d 692

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 5, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106599

StatusPublished

This text of 567 S.W.3d 692 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 567 S.W.3d 692 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*693Rodney Lee ("Appellant") appeals the judgment dismissing his "Motion/Request to Reopen Rule 29.15 PCR Motion Based on Abandonment of [Post-Conviction] Counsel" ("Motion to Reopen").

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM

*693Rodney Lee ("Appellant") appeals the judgment dismissing his "Motion/Request to Reopen Rule 29.15 PCR Motion Based on Abandonment of [Post-Conviction] Counsel" ("Motion to Reopen").

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 S.W.3d 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-moctapp-2019.