Taylor v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Taylor v. State

445 S.W.3d 679, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1140, 2014 WL 5139415

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Taylor v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1049 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 14, 2014·No. No. ED 100748·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric D. Taylor appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035¹ motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties, for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric D. Taylor appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035¹ motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties, for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Civ. P. 84.16(b).

Taylor v. State, 445 S.W.3d 679, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1140, 2014 WL 5139415 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

445 S.W.3d 679 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.