Puetz v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Puetz v. State

260 S.W.3d 435, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2008 WL 3843571

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 90369

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 260 S.W.3d 435 (Puetz 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

Puetz v. State, 260 S.W.3d 435, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2008 WL 3843571 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Puetz (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion *436 without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts that were not refuted by the record and that if proved, would warrant relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Puetz (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion *436 without an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts that were not refuted by the record and that if proved, would warrant relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 435, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1081, 2008 WL 3843571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puetz-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack