Watson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Watson v. State

518 S.W.3d 285, 2017 WL 2118569, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 426

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 16, 2017·No. ED 104418·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Muhammed Watson (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Muhammed Watson (“Movant”) appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Watson v. State, 518 S.W.3d 285, 2017 WL 2118569, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 426 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

518 S.W.3d 285 (Watson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.