Ward v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ward v. State

502 S.W.3d 78, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1055, 2016 WL 6216546

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103569

StatusPublished

This text of 502 S.W.3d 78 (Ward 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

Ward v. State, 502 S.W.3d 78, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1055, 2016 WL 6216546 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Marka C. Ward (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence denying Movant’s Rule 29,15 claims for post-conviction relief. 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

Marka C. Ward (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence denying Movant’s Rule 29,15 claims for post-conviction relief. 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 78, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1055, 2016 WL 6216546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-state-moctapp-2016.