Smith v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

332 S.W.3d 931, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 305, 2011 WL 794824

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

DocketED 94681

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 332 S.W.3d 931 (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, 332 S.W.3d 931, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 305, 2011 WL 794824 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Smith (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Judgment) denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, *932 provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s 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.

Ronald Smith (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Judgment) denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, *932 provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 S.W.3d 931, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 305, 2011 WL 794824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack