Moore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. State

367 S.W.3d 675, 2012 WL 2107276, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 795

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moore v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 935 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 12, 2012·No. No. ED 97143·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Moore appeals the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Moore’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Moore appeals the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Moore’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Moore v. State, 367 S.W.3d 675, 2012 WL 2107276, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 795 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

367 S.W.3d 675 (Moore v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.