Nixon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nixon v. State

482 S.W.3d 466, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 119, 2016 WL 616354

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 2016·No. No. ED 103109·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Raymond J. Nixon appeals from the motion court’s entry of judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amend[467] ed Rule 24.035 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal ‘file, and the record on appeal and find the claim of error' to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting1 the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Raymond J. Nixon appeals from the motion court’s entry of judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amend[467] ed Rule 24.035 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal ‘file, and the record on appeal and find the claim of error' to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting1 the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Nixon v. State, 482 S.W.3d 466, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 119, 2016 WL 616354 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

482 S.W.3d 466 (Nixon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.