McEwen v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McEwen v. State

364 S.W.3d 268, 2012 WL 1338365, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 511

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2012

DocketED 96845

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 S.W.3d 268 (McEwen 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

McEwen v. State, 364 S.W.3d 268, 2012 WL 1338365, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 511 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry A. McEwen appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a partial evidentiary hearing. The motion court did not clearly err in denying McEwen’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry A. McEwen appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a partial evidentiary hearing. The motion court did not clearly err in denying McEwen’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 S.W.3d 268, 2012 WL 1338365, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcewen-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack