Taylor v. State

456 S.W.3d 861, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1365, 2014 WL 6924551
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 December 9, 2014·No. ED 100566·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Arnold Taylor appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.151 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v.. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App.E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

Taylor v. State, 456 S.W.3d 861, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1365, 2014 WL 6924551 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

456 S.W.3d 861 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burston v. State
343 S.W.3d 691 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)