Reed v. State

175 S.W.3d 196, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 2005 WL 2850606
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Reed v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1438
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 1, 2005·No. No. ED 85698·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tommy E. Reed (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary 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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 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 affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Reed v. State, 175 S.W.3d 196, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 2005 WL 2850606 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

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