Moore v. State

69 S.W.3d 136, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 371, 2002 WL 264496
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moore v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 577
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2002·No. No. ED 79924·Published

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

Moore v. State, 69 S.W.3d 136, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 371, 2002 WL 264496 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

69 S.W.3d 136 (Moore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Moore
23 S.W.3d 844 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)