Miller v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Miller v. State

310 S.W.3d 303, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 616, 2010 WL 1860795

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 2010

DocketED 93113

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 310 S.W.3d 303 (Miller 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

Miller v. State, 310 S.W.3d 303, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 616, 2010 WL 1860795 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael W. Miller appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, following an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion under Rule 29.15 1 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use *304 only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2009, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael W. Miller appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, following an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion under Rule 29.15 1 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use *304 only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2009, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 S.W.3d 303, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 616, 2010 WL 1860795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack