Ringo v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ringo v. State

404 S.W.3d 912, 2013 WL 2257460, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 609

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 21, 2013·No. No. ED 98922·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Earl Ringo (“Ringo”), appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-[913] conviction relief motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Movant, Earl Ringo (“Ringo”), appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-[913] conviction relief motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Ringo v. State, 404 S.W.3d 912, 2013 WL 2257460, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

404 S.W.3d 912 (Ringo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.