Shelton v. State

518 S.W.3d 900, 2017 WL 2255237, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 473
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 23, 2017
DocketNo. ED 104472
StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 900 (Shelton 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
Shelton v. State, 518 S.W.3d 900, 2017 WL 2255237, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 473 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jordan Shelton III (“Movant”) appeals the motion court’s order and judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170, 175 (Mo. banc 2009). No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of [901]*901the 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

Related

Zink v. State
278 S.W.3d 170 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
518 S.W.3d 900, 2017 WL 2255237, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-state-moctapp-2017.