Plank v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Plank v. State

306 S.W.3d 196, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 2010 WL 933736

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 16, 2010·No. ED 92934·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Plank (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Lincoln County denying, after an eviden-tiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on finding of fact that are not clearly erroneous, and no error of law appears.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, 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.

Christopher Plank (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Lincoln County denying, after an eviden-tiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on finding of fact that are not clearly erroneous, and no error of law appears.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Plank v. State, 306 S.W.3d 196, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 308, 2010 WL 933736 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

306 S.W.3d 196 (Plank v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.