Sloan v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sloan v. State

39 S.W.3d 74, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 421, 2001 WL 221641

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 6, 2001·No. No. ED 77843·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Movant, Antoine Sloan, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have previously affirmed Movant’s conviction for second degree drug trafficking in violation of section 195.223.3(2), RSMo 1994. State v. Sloan, 998 S.W.2d 142 (Mo.App. E.D.1999).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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

Movant, Antoine Sloan, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have previously affirmed Movant’s conviction for second degree drug trafficking in violation of section 195.223.3(2), RSMo 1994. State v. Sloan, 998 S.W.2d 142 (Mo.App. E.D.1999).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Sloan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 74, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 421, 2001 WL 221641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

39 S.W.3d 74 (Sloan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related