Peete v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Peete v. State

374 S.W.3d 404, 2012 WL 3667436, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1032

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 28, 2012·No. No. ED 97557·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darnell Peete appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15¹ . We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darnell Peete appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15¹ . We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

Peete v. State, 374 S.W.3d 404, 2012 WL 3667436, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1032 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

374 S.W.3d 404 (Peete v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.