Smith v. State

518 S.W.3d 283, 2017 WL 2118547, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 428
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Smith v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 182
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 16, 2017·No. ED 104488·Published

Opinion

ORDER .

PER CURIAM.

Felicia Smith appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying her Rule 29.151 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for then.- use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

Smith v. State, 518 S.W.3d 283, 2017 WL 2118547, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 428 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

518 S.W.3d 283 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burston v. State
343 S.W.3d 691 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)