Ross v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ross v. State

249 S.W.3d 923, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 2008 WL 1722804

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 2008

DocketED 89288

StatusPublished

This text of 249 S.W.3d 923 (Ross 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

Ross v. State, 249 S.W.3d 923, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 2008 WL 1722804 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keith Ross (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment (judgment) denying his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence, filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 24.035(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming 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.

Keith Ross (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment (judgment) denying his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence, filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 24.035(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.W.3d 923, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 2008 WL 1722804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-state-moctapp-2008.