Warren v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Warren v. State

105 S.W.3d 551, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1401, 2003 WL 21060846

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Warren v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 174 S.W.3d 727 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 13, 2003·No. No. ED 81140·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wesley Warren appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Wesley Warren appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment under Rule 84.16(b).

Warren v. State, 105 S.W.3d 551, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1401, 2003 WL 21060846 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

105 S.W.3d 551 (Warren v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.