Stepney v. State

195 S.W.3d 11, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 940, 2006 WL 1736218
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 27, 2006·No. ED 86235·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robin Stepney appeals from the judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

*12 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the general principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Stepney v. State, 195 S.W.3d 11, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 940, 2006 WL 1736218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

195 S.W.3d 11 (Stepney v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

RAW v. Entwistle
195 S.W.3d 11 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)