Randle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Randle v. State

520 S.W.3d 826, 2017 WL 2644042, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 613

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2017

DocketED 104493

StatusPublished

This text of 520 S.W.3d 826 (Randle 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

Randle v. State, 520 S.W.3d 826, 2017 WL 2644042, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willie Randle appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing; 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 24.035(k); Little v. State, 427 S.W.3d 846, 850 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willie Randle appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing; 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 24.035(k); Little v. State, 427 S.W.3d 846, 850 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 S.W.3d 826, 2017 WL 2644042, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randle-v-state-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack