Livingston v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Livingston v. State

365 S.W.3d 311, 2012 WL 1499904, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 603

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 2012

DocketWD 73069

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 365 S.W.3d 311 (Livingston 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

Livingston v. State, 365 S.W.3d 311, 2012 WL 1499904, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 603 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lance Livingston appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. A formal, published opinion would have no precedential value; however, a memoran *312 dum explaining the reason for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lance Livingston appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. A formal, published opinion would have no precedential value; however, a memoran *312 dum explaining the reason for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 S.W.3d 311, 2012 WL 1499904, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/livingston-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack