Smith v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

397 S.W.3d 923, 2013 WL 1905449, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 550

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98206

StatusPublished

This text of 397 S.W.3d 923 (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, 397 S.W.3d 923, 2013 WL 1905449, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Corey Smith, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Corey Smith, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 S.W.3d 923, 2013 WL 1905449, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-moctapp-2013.