O'CONNELL v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

O'CONNELL v. State

163 S.W.3d 37, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 781, 2005 WL 1213941

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 24, 2005·No. WD 64019·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin O’Connell appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentia-ry hearing. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the motion court’s judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value. AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin O’Connell appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentia-ry hearing. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the motion court’s judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value. AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

O'CONNELL v. State, 163 S.W.3d 37, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 781, 2005 WL 1213941 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

163 S.W.3d 37 (O'CONNELL v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.