Thompson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Thompson v. State

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 7, 2011·No. No. ED 95242·Published

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).

Footnotes

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).

Footnotes

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

Pincite

341 S.W.3d 917 (Thompson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related