Rushing v. State
342 S.W.3d 370, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 780, 2011 WL 2237549
Opinion
ORDER
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
Rushing v. State, 342 S.W.3d 370, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 780, 2011 WL 2237549 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
342 S.W.3d 370 (Rushing v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Ivy
342 S.W.3d 370 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)