State v. Kniest

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kniest

515 S.W.3d 768, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1328, 2016 WL 7448314

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 2016

DocketNo. ED 104166-01

StatusPublished

This text of 515 S.W.3d 768 (State v. Kniest) 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

State v. Kniest, 515 S.W.3d 768, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1328, 2016 WL 7448314 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

George M. Kniest appeals from the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief, which Kniest termed as a “motion for new trial/proceedings to vacate, set aside judgment, demanding finds of fact and conclusions of law, in the alternative allow an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court in forma pau-peris requesting counsel be assigned.” We treat this motion as a successive motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Finding no error, we affirm.

[769]*769We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

George M. Kniest appeals from the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief, which Kniest termed as a “motion for new trial/proceedings to vacate, set aside judgment, demanding finds of fact and conclusions of law, in the alternative allow an appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court in forma pau-peris requesting counsel be assigned.” We treat this motion as a successive motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Finding no error, we affirm.

[769]*769We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 S.W.3d 768, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1328, 2016 WL 7448314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kniest-moctapp-2016.