Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. State

327 S.W.3d 626, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1753, 2010 WL 5174454

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 21, 2010·No. ED 93969·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Taylor (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment (judgment) denying his Rule 29.15 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence (PCR Motion), entered following an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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.

Samuel Taylor (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment (judgment) denying his Rule 29.15 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence (PCR Motion), entered following an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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).

Taylor v. State, 327 S.W.3d 626, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1753, 2010 WL 5174454 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

327 S.W.3d 626 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related