Smith v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

961 S.W.2d 943, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 1998 WL 65779

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

DocketNos. 72216, 72245

StatusPublished

This text of 961 S.W.2d 943 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 961 S.W.2d 943, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 1998 WL 65779 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find the motion court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. 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 appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties and find the motion court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision for the use of the parties only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

961 S.W.2d 943, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 303, 1998 WL 65779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-moctapp-1998.