Scott v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Scott v. State

991 S.W.2d 209, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 698

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Scott v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1539 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 18, 1999·No. No. 73520·Published

Opinion

[210]*210 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwan Scott, movant, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

[210]*210 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwan Scott, movant, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find the motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Scott v. State, 991 S.W.2d 209, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 698 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

991 S.W.2d 209 (Scott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.