Mack v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mack v. State

482 S.W.3d 449, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 99, 2016 WL 513434

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102763

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 449 (Mack 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

Mack v. State, 482 S.W.3d 449, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 99, 2016 WL 513434 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony K. Mack appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and .the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony K. Mack appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and .the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 449, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 99, 2016 WL 513434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-state-moctapp-2016.