Scott v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Scott v. State

358 S.W.3d 587, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 172, 2012 WL 453740

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 2012

DocketED 96557

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 S.W.3d 587 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 358 S.W.3d 587, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 172, 2012 WL 453740 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kerwin Scott appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Scott’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum sét-ting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial 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.

Kerwin Scott appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Scott’s request for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 587, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 172, 2012 WL 453740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack