Martinez v. State

413 S.W.3d 21, 2013 WL 5744559, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1245
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 22, 2013·No. No. ED 99658·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mario Martinez appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.0351 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. 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 24.035(k); Nesbitt v. State, 335 S.W.3d 67, 69 • (Mo.App.E.D. 2011). 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).

Footnotes

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

Martinez v. State, 413 S.W.3d 21, 2013 WL 5744559, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1245 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

413 S.W.3d 21 (Martinez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nesbitt v. State
335 S.W.3d 67 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)