Wade v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wade v. State

36 S.W.3d 406, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 38, 2001 WL 32749

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77176

StatusPublished

This text of 36 S.W.3d 406 (Wade 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

Wade v. State, 36 S.W.3d 406, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 38, 2001 WL 32749 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Unzell Wade (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29 .15 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his judgment and sentence without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would be of no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Unzell Wade (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29 .15 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his judgment and sentence without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would be of no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.W.3d 406, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 38, 2001 WL 32749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wade-v-state-moctapp-2001.