Scott v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Scott v. State

482 S.W.3d 470, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 148, 2016 WL 720414

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 23, 2016·No. No. ED 102228·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Scott appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-convic[471] tion relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Scott appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-convic[471] tion relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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).

Scott v. State, 482 S.W.3d 470, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 148, 2016 WL 720414 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

482 S.W.3d 470 (Scott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.