SCHMEDEKE v. State

348 S.W.3d 183, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1235, 2011 WL 4369398
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 20, 2011
DocketED 95477
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 348 S.W.3d 183 (SCHMEDEKE 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
SCHMEDEKE v. State, 348 S.W.3d 183, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1235, 2011 WL 4369398 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Schmedeke appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties, for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2011, unless otherwise indicated.

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

Related

Frost v. State
348 S.W.3d 183 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
348 S.W.3d 183, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1235, 2011 WL 4369398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmedeke-v-state-moctapp-2011.