Midgyett v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Midgyett v. State

369 S.W.3d 51, 2012 WL 1499923, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 596

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 2012

DocketNo. WD 73485

StatusPublished

This text of 369 S.W.3d 51 (Midgyett 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

Midgyett v. State, 369 S.W.3d 51, 2012 WL 1499923, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 596 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Midgyett appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. A formal, published opinion would have no precedential value; however, a memorandum explaining the reason for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Midgyett appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. A formal, published opinion would have no precedential value; however, a memorandum explaining the reason for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 S.W.3d 51, 2012 WL 1499923, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midgyett-v-state-moctapp-2012.