Smith v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

988 S.W.2d 645, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 466

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 6, 1999

DocketNo. 74935

StatusPublished

This text of 988 S.W.2d 645 (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, 988 S.W.2d 645, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 466 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kawynn Smith, Movant, files this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing following his guilty plea to second degree murder, section 565.021, RSMo 1994. 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 24.035(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.

Kawynn Smith, Movant, files this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without a hearing following his guilty plea to second degree murder, section 565.021, RSMo 1994. 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 24.035(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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

988 S.W.2d 645, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-moctapp-1999.