Sitton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sitton v. State

294 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1490, 2009 WL 3259998

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 13, 2009

DocketED 92260

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 294 S.W.3d 137 (Sitton 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

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

Pincite

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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1490, 2009 WL 3259998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sitton-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack