Shobe v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Shobe v. State

354 S.W.3d 672, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1700, 2011 WL 6628445

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

DocketED 96181

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 354 S.W.3d 672 (Shobe 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

Shobe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 672, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1700, 2011 WL 6628445 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Earl D. Shobe appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no prec-edential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Earl D. Shobe appeals the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no prec-edential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 S.W.3d 672, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1700, 2011 WL 6628445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shobe-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack