Roberts v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Roberts v. State

393 S.W.3d 668, 2013 WL 1136111, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 333

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98295

StatusPublished

This text of 393 S.W.3d 668 (Roberts 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

Roberts v. State, 393 S.W.3d 668, 2013 WL 1136111, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 333 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher R. Roberts appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher R. Roberts appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evi-dentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 S.W.3d 668, 2013 WL 1136111, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-state-moctapp-2013.