Ruth v. State
202 S.W.3d 638, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1175, 2006 WL 2128852
Opinion
ORDER
Phillip Ruth appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 74.06 motion to re-open post-conviction proceedings. Because Ruth’s motion failed to state a proper claim for relief under Rule 74.06, we affirm the motion court’s judgment.
No precedential purpose would be served by a published opinion, however, we have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision. AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ruth v. State, 202 S.W.3d 638, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1175, 2006 WL 2128852 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
202 S.W.3d 638 (Ruth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Versaw v. Versaw
202 S.W.3d 638 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)