Turner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Turner v. State

33 S.W.3d 657, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1699, 2000 WL 1701768

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Turner v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2026 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 14, 2000·No. No. ED 77323·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carl Turner (“Movant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Carl Turner (“Movant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(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).

Turner v. State, 33 S.W.3d 657, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1699, 2000 WL 1701768 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

33 S.W.3d 657 (Turner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.