Tedder v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tedder v. State

262 S.W.3d 261, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2008 WL 3898828

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 26, 2008

DocketED 90643

StatusPublished

This text of 262 S.W.3d 261 (Tedder 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

Tedder v. State, 262 S.W.3d 261, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2008 WL 3898828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Tedder (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed Movant’s conviction, following a jury trial, for first degree sodomy, in Movant’s direct appeal. State v. Tedder, 219 S.W.3d 788 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). We affirm.

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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information 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.

Michael Tedder (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. This Court affirmed Movant’s conviction, following a jury trial, for first degree sodomy, in Movant’s direct appeal. State v. Tedder, 219 S.W.3d 788 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). We affirm.

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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information 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)

262 S.W.3d 261, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2008 WL 3898828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tedder-v-state-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack