Thomas v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thomas v. State

4 S.W.3d 592, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2006, 1999 WL 809491

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thomas v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1183 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 12, 1999·No. No. ED 75354·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Ronald Thomas, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties 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.

Movant, Ronald Thomas, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Thomas v. State, 4 S.W.3d 592, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2006, 1999 WL 809491 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

4 S.W.3d 592 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.