Mayes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mayes v. State

986 S.W.2d 524, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 195

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 23, 1999·No. No. 74523·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Mayes files this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Mayes files this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Mayes v. State, 986 S.W.2d 524, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 195 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

986 S.W.2d 524 (Mayes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related