Robinson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Robinson v. State

9 S.W.3d 638, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2005, 1999 WL 809527

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Robinson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1568 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 12, 1999·No. No. ED 75949·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, John Robinson, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the [639]*639reasons 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.

Movant, John Robinson, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the [639]*639reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Robinson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 638, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2005, 1999 WL 809527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

9 S.W.3d 638 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.