Perry v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Perry v. State

354 S.W.3d 671, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 2011 WL 6613288

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 20, 2011·No. ED 95734·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael D. Perry (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order (judgment) denying his Rule 29.15 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence (PCR Motion) after an evidentia-ry hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s 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.

Michael D. Perry (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order (judgment) denying his Rule 29.15 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence (PCR Motion) after an evidentia-ry hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Perry v. State, 354 S.W.3d 671, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1692, 2011 WL 6613288 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

354 S.W.3d 671 (Perry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related