Thompson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thompson v. State

341 S.W.3d 917, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 762, 2011 WL 2201042

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketNo. ED 95242

StatusPublished

This text of 341 S.W.3d 917 (Thompson 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

Thompson v. State, 341 S.W.3d 917, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 762, 2011 WL 2201042 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lamont Thompson appeals from the motion court’s judgment 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); Daugherty v. State, 159 S.W.3d 405, 407 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lamont Thompson appeals from the motion court’s judgment 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); Daugherty v. State, 159 S.W.3d 405, 407 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 917, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 762, 2011 WL 2201042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack