Miller v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Miller v. State

352 S.W.3d 418, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1484, 2011 WL 5374102

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 8, 2011·No. ED 95578·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Miller appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo.banc 2010). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use 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.2006, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Miller appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo.banc 2010). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use 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.2006, unless otherwise indicated.

Miller v. State, 352 S.W.3d 418, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1484, 2011 WL 5374102 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

352 S.W.3d 418 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related