Moore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. State

964 S.W.2d 464, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 1998 WL 58860

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 1998

DocketNo. 72248

StatusPublished

This text of 964 S.W.2d 464 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 964 S.W.2d 464, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 1998 WL 58860 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Moore, Movant, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stanley Moore, Movant, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

964 S.W.2d 464, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 249, 1998 WL 58860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-moctapp-1998.