Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. State

24 S.W.3d 737, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 155, 2000 WL 108615

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 2000

DocketNo. ED 75912

StatusPublished

This text of 24 S.W.3d 737 (Taylor v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. State, 24 S.W.3d 737, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 155, 2000 WL 108615 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Taylor (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. 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(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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.

Ronald Taylor (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. 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(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 S.W.3d 737, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 155, 2000 WL 108615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-moctapp-2000.