Lee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lee v. State

567 S.W.3d 692

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 5, 2019·No. No. ED 106599·Published

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).

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

Pincite

567 S.W.3d 692 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.