State v. Tatum

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tatum

365 S.W.3d 643

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 1, 2012·No. WD 73243·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lance Livingston appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we *644 conclude that the judgment is based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. A formal, published opinion would have no precedential value; however, a memorandum explaining the reason for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Lance Livingston appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a thorough review of the record, we *644 conclude that the judgment is based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. A formal, published opinion would have no precedential value; however, a memorandum explaining the reason for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

State v. Tatum, 365 S.W.3d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

365 S.W.3d 643 (State v. Tatum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.