LeFLORE v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

LeFLORE v. State

347 S.W.3d 177, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2011 WL 3807674

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketED 95592

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 347 S.W.3d 177 (LeFLORE 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

LeFLORE v. State, 347 S.W.3d 177, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2011 WL 3807674 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kavin LeFlore appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion 1 for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo.banc 2010). 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.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kavin LeFlore appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion 1 for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo.banc 2010). 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.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 177, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2011 WL 3807674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leflore-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack