SHARKS v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

SHARKS v. State

339 S.W.3d 627, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 2011 WL 1519370

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 19, 2011·No. ED 94927·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Sharks appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 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 29.15(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.2010, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Sharks appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 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 29.15(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.2010, unless otherwise indicated.

SHARKS v. State, 339 S.W.3d 627, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 597, 2011 WL 1519370 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

339 S.W.3d 627 (SHARKS v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.