Monigan v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Monigan v. State

510 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 676740

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 21, 2017·No. ED 103821·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alón Monigan appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D. 2011). 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 only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alón Monigan appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D. 2011). 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 only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

Monigan v. State, 510 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 676740 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

510 S.W.3d 901 (Monigan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related