Waters v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Waters v. State

354 S.W.3d 670, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1688, 2011 WL 6433697

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

DocketED 94993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 354 S.W.3d 670 (Waters 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

Waters v. State, 354 S.W.3d 670, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1688, 2011 WL 6433697 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Waters appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not err in denying Waters’ request for post-conviction relief. 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.

Andrew Waters appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not err in denying Waters’ request for post-conviction relief. 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 S.W.3d 670, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1688, 2011 WL 6433697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waters-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack