Pierson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pierson v. State

43 S.W.3d 455, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 647, 2001 WL 379067

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Pierson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1880 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 17, 2001·No. No. ED 78195·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Pierson appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, legal file and transcript. We find that the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). A written opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, furnished the parties with a brief memorandum for their information only stating the reasons for this order. 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.

Michael Pierson appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentia-ry hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, legal file and transcript. We find that the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). A written opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, furnished the parties with a brief memorandum for their information only stating the reasons for this order. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Pierson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 455, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 647, 2001 WL 379067 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

43 S.W.3d 455 (Pierson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.