Taylor v. State

161 S.W.3d 892, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 591, 2005 WL 894604
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Taylor v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1457
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 19, 2005·No. No. ED 84446·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Miron Taylor (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error is without merit. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the 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

Taylor v. State, 161 S.W.3d 892, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 591, 2005 WL 894604 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

161 S.W.3d 892 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.