SOUBASIS v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

SOUBASIS v. State

331 S.W.3d 731, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 201, 2011 WL 601182

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 22, 2011·No. ED 94367·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dionysus Soubasis appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his amended Rule 29.15 1 post-conviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Glass v. State, 227 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Mo.banc 2007). 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 their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise noted.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dionysus Soubasis appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his amended Rule 29.15 1 post-conviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Glass v. State, 227 S.W.3d 463, 468 (Mo.banc 2007). 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 their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise noted.

SOUBASIS v. State, 331 S.W.3d 731, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 201, 2011 WL 601182 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

331 S.W.3d 731 (SOUBASIS v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related