Robinson v. State

405 S.W.3d 563, 2013 WL 3147347, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 738
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Robinson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 232
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 18, 2013·No. No. ED 99240·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Robinson appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.151 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

Robinson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 563, 2013 WL 3147347, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 738 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

405 S.W.3d 563 (Robinson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burston v. State
343 S.W.3d 691 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)