McCusker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCusker v. State

93 S.W.3d 845, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2483, 2002 WL 31866239

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 24, 2002

DocketED 80914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 S.W.3d 845 (McCusker 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

McCusker v. State, 93 S.W.3d 845, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2483, 2002 WL 31866239 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph McCusker (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A detailed opinion would be of no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a brief memorandum opinion, for their information only, explaining *846 the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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 McCusker (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A detailed opinion would be of no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a brief memorandum opinion, for their information only, explaining *846 the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.W.3d 845, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2483, 2002 WL 31866239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccusker-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack