Sitton v. State

294 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1490, 2009 WL 3259998
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 13, 2009·No. ED 92260·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William J. Sitton (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (judgment) denying his Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing (PCR Motion), filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, on his convictions for first-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action.

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 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. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished 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

Sitton v. State, 294 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1490, 2009 WL 3259998 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

294 S.W.3d 137 (Sitton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Sitton v. Norman
406 S.W.3d 915 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2013)
State v. Hendrickson
294 S.W.3d 137 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)