Simmons v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Simmons v. State

232 S.W.3d 667, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1243, 2007 WL 2593770

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 11, 2007

DocketED 89110

StatusPublished

This text of 232 S.W.3d 667 (Simmons 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

Simmons v. State, 232 S.W.3d 667, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1243, 2007 WL 2593770 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Simmons appeals the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Simmons appeals the motion court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.W.3d 667, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1243, 2007 WL 2593770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-state-moctapp-2007.