Trautwein v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Trautwein v. State

366 S.W.3d 88, 2012 WL 1623607, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 625

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 9, 2012

DocketED 97051

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 366 S.W.3d 88 (Trautwein 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

Trautwein v. State, 366 S.W.3d 88, 2012 WL 1623607, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 625 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John T. Trautwein appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s 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.

John T. Trautwein appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 S.W.3d 88, 2012 WL 1623607, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trautwein-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack