O'Neall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

O'Neall v. State

505 S.W.3d 343, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1059, 2016 WL 6212050

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

DocketNo. ED103571

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 343 (O'Neall 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

O'Neall v. State, 505 S.W.3d 343, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1059, 2016 WL 6212050 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Patrick T. O’Neall appeals from the motion court’s “Memorandum Decision and Judgment Denying Post-Conviction Relief’ on his “Rule 24.035 Amended Motion” following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting 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

Patrick T. O’Neall appeals from the motion court’s “Memorandum Decision and Judgment Denying Post-Conviction Relief’ on his “Rule 24.035 Amended Motion” following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting 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)

505 S.W.3d 343, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1059, 2016 WL 6212050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneall-v-state-moctapp-2016.