Rodgers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rodgers v. State

268 S.W.3d 470, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1452, 2008 WL 4901749

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 4, 2008·No. ED 91198·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Rodgers (Appellant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the *471 judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2003, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Rodgers (Appellant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the *471 judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2003, unless otherwise indicated.

Rodgers v. State, 268 S.W.3d 470, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1452, 2008 WL 4901749 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

268 S.W.3d 470 (Rodgers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.