Nixon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nixon v. State

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103109

StatusPublished

This text of 482 S.W.3d 466 (Nixon 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

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

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Raymond J. Nixon appeals from the motion court’s entry of judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amend[467]*467ed 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]*467ed 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 S.W.3d 466, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 119, 2016 WL 616354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nixon-v-state-moctapp-2016.