Thomas v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thomas v. State

129 S.W.3d 426, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 315, 2004 WL 421118

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Thomas v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1897 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 9, 2004·No. No. ED 82928·Published

Opinion

[427]*427 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Johnnie Thomas, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment 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

[427]*427 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Johnnie Thomas, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s judgment 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, 129 S.W.3d 426, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 315, 2004 WL 421118 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

129 S.W.3d 426 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.