Walker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walker v. State

375 S.W.3d 832, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 753, 2012 WL 1995083

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Walker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 974 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 5, 2012·No. No. ED 97410·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Darold Walker, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would [833]*833have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Darold Walker, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would [833]*833have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The motion court’s order denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Walker v. State, 375 S.W.3d 832, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 753, 2012 WL 1995083 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

375 S.W.3d 832 (Walker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.