Shaw v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shaw v. State

900 S.W.2d 14, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1107, 1995 WL 351800

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 1995

DocketNo. 66383

StatusPublished

This text of 900 S.W.2d 14 (Shaw 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

Shaw v. State, 900 S.W.2d 14, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1107, 1995 WL 351800 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In State v. Shaw, 839 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. App.1992), we affirmed Movant’s conviction of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action and remanded his Rule 29.15 motion for further proceedings. Movant now appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In State v. Shaw, 839 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. App.1992), we affirmed Movant’s conviction of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action and remanded his Rule 29.15 motion for further proceedings. Movant now appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 S.W.2d 14, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1107, 1995 WL 351800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-state-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack