Watson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Watson v. State

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2017

DocketED 104418

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 285 (Watson 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

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 285, 2017 WL 2118569, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-state-moctapp-2017.