Rosenthal v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rosenthal v. State

323 S.W.3d 96, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1420, 2010 WL 4075771

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 19, 2010·No. ED 93700·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Rosenthal (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of *97 St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find no error and affirm the motion court’s judgment.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Sup.Ct. R. (2007), unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Rosenthal (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of *97 St. Louis County denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find no error and affirm the motion court’s judgment.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Sup.Ct. R. (2007), unless otherwise indicated.

Rosenthal v. State, 323 S.W.3d 96, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1420, 2010 WL 4075771 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

323 S.W.3d 96 (Rosenthal v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.