Ridenour v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ridenour v. State

509 S.W.3d 885, 2017 WL 495345, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 105

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103775

StatusPublished

This text of 509 S.W.3d 885 (Ridenour 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

Ridenour v. State, 509 S.W.3d 885, 2017 WL 495345, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Bobby D. Ridenour (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 claims for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, 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 applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

Bobby D. Ridenour (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 claims for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, 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 applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 S.W.3d 885, 2017 WL 495345, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ridenour-v-state-moctapp-2017.