Logsdon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Logsdon v. State

330 S.W.3d 497, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 263, 2010 WL 785307

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 9, 2010·No. ED 93072·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael L. Logsdon appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael L. Logsdon appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

Logsdon v. State, 330 S.W.3d 497, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 263, 2010 WL 785307 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

330 S.W.3d 497 (Logsdon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.