Swims v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Swims v. State

16 S.W.3d 746, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 638, 2000 WL 520609

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 2, 2000·No. No. ED 76755·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keyran Swims (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing ordered by remand in State v. Srnms, 966 S.W.2d 368 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j)(1995). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Keyran Swims (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing ordered by remand in State v. Srnms, 966 S.W.2d 368 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j)(1995). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Swims v. State, 16 S.W.3d 746, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 638, 2000 WL 520609 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

16 S.W.3d 746 (Swims v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related