Walker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walker v. State

285 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 974, 2009 WL 1851089

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 2009·No. WD 69232·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mark D. Walker appeals the circuit court’s order denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief in which he claimed that the State failed to disclose that its witness had prior convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we *835 conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. A published opinion would have no prece-dential value; however, a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mark D. Walker appeals the circuit court’s order denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief in which he claimed that the State failed to disclose that its witness had prior convictions. After a thorough review of the record, we *835 conclude that the judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous and that no error of law appears. A published opinion would have no prece-dential value; however, a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Walker v. State, 285 S.W.3d 834, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 974, 2009 WL 1851089 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

285 S.W.3d 834 (Walker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related