Sherman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sherman v. State

298 S.W.3d 591, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1706, 2009 WL 4639890

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 8, 2009·No. ED 92745·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shawn W. Sherman appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion 1 for postconviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Matthews v. State, 175 S.W.3d 110, 113 (Mo.banc 2005). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2006, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shawn W. Sherman appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion 1 for postconviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Matthews v. State, 175 S.W.3d 110, 113 (Mo.banc 2005). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2006, unless otherwise indicated.

Sherman v. State, 298 S.W.3d 591, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1706, 2009 WL 4639890 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

298 S.W.3d 591 (Sherman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related