Vasel v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Vasel v. State

392 S.W.3d 530, 2013 WL 704400, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 245

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2013·No. No. ED 98107·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gary Vasel appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035,¹ following an evidentiary [531] hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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.

Gary Vasel appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035,¹ following an evidentiary [531] hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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

Vasel v. State, 392 S.W.3d 530, 2013 WL 704400, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 245 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

392 S.W.3d 530 (Vasel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.