Moore v. State

145 S.W.3d 849, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1164, 2004 WL 1824114

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moore v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1899 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 17, 2004·No. No. ED 83378·Published

Opinion

[850]*850ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Kevin Moore, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was previously convicted, after a jury trial, of kidnapping, four counts of forcible sodomy, forcible rape and attempted forcible rape.

The judgment of the trial court in the Rule 29.15 proceeding is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[850]*850ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court in the Rule 29.15 proceeding is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Moore v. State, 145 S.W.3d 849, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1164, 2004 WL 1824114 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

145 S.W.3d 849 (Moore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.