Shaw v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shaw v. State

392 S.W.3d 535, 2013 WL 704763, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 249

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2013·No. No. ED 98310·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cory Shaw appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(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 [536] judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cory Shaw appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035.¹ We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(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 [536] judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Footnotes

Shaw v. State, 392 S.W.3d 535, 2013 WL 704763, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

392 S.W.3d 535 (Shaw v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.