Sumpter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sumpter v. State

465 S.W.3d 512, 2015 WL 4282677

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 14, 2015·No. No. ED 101771·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Darius Sumpter (Movant) appeals the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. We affirm.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that were not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Darius Sumpter (Movant) appeals the motion court’s judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. We affirm.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that were not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Sumpter v. State, 465 S.W.3d 512, 2015 WL 4282677 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

465 S.W.3d 512 (Sumpter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.