Rushing v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rushing v. State

342 S.W.3d 370, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 780, 2011 WL 2237549

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketED 94955

StatusPublished

This text of 342 S.W.3d 370 (Rushing 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

Rushing v. State, 342 S.W.3d 370, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 780, 2011 WL 2237549 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Perry Rushing appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Perry Rushing appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 370, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 780, 2011 WL 2237549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rushing-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack