Moore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. State

69 S.W.3d 136, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 371, 2002 WL 264496

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 2002

DocketNo. ED 79924

StatusPublished

This text of 69 S.W.3d 136 (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, 69 S.W.3d 136, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 371, 2002 WL 264496 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Mark Moore (Movant) appeals the judgment dismissing his second 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as successive. We previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action, as well as the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion. State v. Moore, 23 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).

We find no clear error in the motion court’s judgment. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Appellant Mark Moore (Movant) appeals the judgment dismissing his second 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief as successive. We previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for first degree murder, attempted first degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action, as well as the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion. State v. Moore, 23 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).

We find no clear error in the motion court’s judgment. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.W.3d 136, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 371, 2002 WL 264496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack