MEANUS v. State

366 S.W.3d 86, 2012 WL 1623579, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 622
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 9, 2012
DocketED 96990
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
366 S.W.3d 86, 2012 WL 1623579, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meanus-v-state-moctapp-2012.