Smith v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Smith v. State

479 S.W.3d 736, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 9, 2016 WL 145330

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102580

StatusPublished

This text of 479 S.W.3d 736 (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, 479 S.W.3d 736, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 9, 2016 WL 145330 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Smith (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court denying his Rule - 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion is affirmed. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

[737]*737We 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.

Larry Smith (“Movant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court denying his Rule - 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court’s denial of Movant’s Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion is affirmed. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

[737]*737We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 S.W.3d 736, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 9, 2016 WL 145330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-moctapp-2016.