Shelton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shelton v. State

518 S.W.3d 900, 2017 WL 2255237, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 473

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 23, 2017·No. No. ED 104472·Published

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] the 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

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] the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

Pincite

518 S.W.3d 900 (Shelton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related