Waiksnis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Waiksnis v. State

502 S.W.3d 687, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 773, 2016 WL 4362121

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 16, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103190

StatusPublished

This text of 502 S.W.3d 687 (Waiksnis 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

Waiksnis v. State, 502 S.W.3d 687, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 773, 2016 WL 4362121 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

George J. Waiksnis appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amended Rule 24.035 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

George J. Waiksnis appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his amended Rule 24.035 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 S.W.3d 687, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 773, 2016 WL 4362121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waiksnis-v-state-moctapp-2016.