Ware v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ware v. State

99 S.W.3d 2, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2403, 2002 WL 31818072

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ware v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 2045 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 17, 2002·No. No. ED 80333·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Ware (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A detailed opinion would be of no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a brief memorandum opinion, for their information only, explaining the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Donald Ware (“Movant”) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A detailed opinion would be of no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a brief memorandum opinion, for their information only, explaining the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Ware v. State, 99 S.W.3d 2, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2403, 2002 WL 31818072 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

99 S.W.3d 2 (Ware v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.