Walker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walker v. State

391 S.W.3d 915, 2013 WL 542058, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 172

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Walker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 670 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 13, 2013·No. No. ED 98435·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jimmie L. Walker appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Walker’s request for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jimmie L. Walker appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Walker’s request for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Walker v. State, 391 S.W.3d 915, 2013 WL 542058, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 172 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

391 S.W.3d 915 (Walker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.