Tramble v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tramble v. State

209 S.W.3d 22, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1840, 2006 WL 3488707

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 5, 2006·No. No. ED 86583·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Quincy Falls Tramble (“Tramble”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after submission of deposition testimony from Tramble and his plea counsel. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Quincy Falls Tramble (“Tramble”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after submission of deposition testimony from Tramble and his plea counsel. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Tramble v. State, 209 S.W.3d 22, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1840, 2006 WL 3488707 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

209 S.W.3d 22 (Tramble v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.