Myles v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Myles v. State

333 S.W.3d 540, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 352, 2011 WL 900578

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

DocketED 94784

StatusPublished

This text of 333 S.W.3d 540 (Myles 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

Myles v. State, 333 S.W.3d 540, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 352, 2011 WL 900578 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Peter Myles, a prior and persistent offender, appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief from the judgment entered upon his plea of guilty to the charge of stealing a credit card pursuant to Section 570.030 RSMo 2006. 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 24.035(k); Melton v. State, 260 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons *541 for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Peter Myles, a prior and persistent offender, appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief from the judgment entered upon his plea of guilty to the charge of stealing a credit card pursuant to Section 570.030 RSMo 2006. 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 24.035(k); Melton v. State, 260 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons *541 for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 S.W.3d 540, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 352, 2011 WL 900578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myles-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack