Stewart v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stewart v. State

340 S.W.3d 305, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 2011 WL 1530469

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stewart v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 922 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 12, 2011·No. No. ED 94661·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert L. Stewart appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert L. Stewart appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Stewart v. State, 340 S.W.3d 305, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 2011 WL 1530469 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

340 S.W.3d 305 (Stewart v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.