Shaw v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shaw v. State

219 S.W.3d 791, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 620, 2007 WL 1120377

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Shaw v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1070 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 17, 2007·No. ED 87486·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stacy Shaw appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stacy Shaw appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

Shaw v. State, 219 S.W.3d 791, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 620, 2007 WL 1120377 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

219 S.W.3d 791 (Shaw v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related