Mullins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mullins v. State

406 S.W.3d 524, 2013 WL 4577431, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 978

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 27, 2013·No. No. ED 98982·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry W. Mullins appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief •without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry W. Mullins appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15¹ motion for post-conviction relief •without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

Mullins v. State, 406 S.W.3d 524, 2013 WL 4577431, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 978 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

406 S.W.3d 524 (Mullins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related