MEANUS v. State

366 S.W.3d 86, 2012 WL 1623579, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 622
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 9, 2012·No. ED 96990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jesse Meanus appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order (judgment) denying his Rule 24.035 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

MEANUS v. State, 366 S.W.3d 86, 2012 WL 1623579, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 622 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

366 S.W.3d 86 (MEANUS v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Steptoe
366 S.W.3d 86 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)